thefiscaltimes--2020-10-14--Biden’s Tax Plan Would Raise Trillions, With Little Effect on Growth: AEI

A newly updated analysis from the conservative American Enterprise Institute finds that Joe Biden ’ s tax plan would raise roughly $ 2.8 trillion over 10 years , while reducing economic growth by a modest 0.16 % .
Biden has proposed raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to pay for increased spending on a wide variety of public programs .
The tax hikes include raising the corporate tax rate ; reversing some elements of the 2017 Republican tax cuts for households earning more than $ 400,000 per year ; and taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million in income .
Who pays more : Overall , Biden ’ s tax plan would make the U.S. tax system more progressive , AEI ’ s Kyle Pomerleau and Grant Seiter say .
Businesses would see the biggest effects .
“ Most of the new revenue in Biden ’ s tax plan would come from increased business taxes ( $ 1.9 trillion ) , ” they write .
“ The largest source of new business revenue and the largest source of new revenue in the entire plan is the proposal to raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 28 percent ( $ 1 trillion between 2021 and 2030 ) .
” On the individual side , the tax hikes would fall almost entirely on the wealthy .
“ In 2021 , Biden ’ s tax proposals would increase the tax burden on the top 5 percent of households and reduce the tax burden on the bottom 95 percent of households , ” the report says .
The top 1 % would see their incomes reduced by 14.2 % , while taxpayers in the bottom 94 % of the distribution would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % and 11.3 % , with those in the bottom decile seeing the largest increase .
After 10 years , all households would pay slightly higher taxes , although this outcome is produced by assumptions AEI makes about corporations ’ ability to pass tax hikes along to workers and consumers — assumptions that are contested by the Biden campaign and some tax experts .
Higher GDP in the long run : The AEI analysis finds that GDP would be slightly smaller after 10 years relative to the baseline , though that conclusion is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built into the model that higher taxes reduce labor supply and capital stock in the economy .
Even so , in the second decade , Biden ’ s plan produces slightly higher GDP relative to the baseline , the analysts said , “ because the increased tax revenue decreases the trajectory of US debt , which means more household savings can be used for private capital accumulation and less has to be used to service the debt interest.
” Spending plans not included : In addition to tax hikes , Biden has proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variety of social programs , but those aren ’ t included in the AEI analysis .
However , it ’ s the combination of the two — a big fiscal boost from increased social spending backed by higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy – that have led many economists , including analysts at Moody ’ s and Goldman Sachs , to conclude that Biden ’ s plans would provide more economic growth than the grab-bag of proposals from the Trump campaign .
“ Largely because of Biden ’ s substantially more expansive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to full employment more quickly coming out of the pandemic than under Trump , ” analysts at Moody ’ s wrote last month .
No support for President Trump ’ s wild claims : Writing about the AEI report Wednesday , Tory Newmyer of The Washington Post noted that , “ President Trump says Joe Biden ’ s tax plan would bring about a depression and destroy the country .
Independent studies have found no support for that claim .
And the latest , an updated examination of the Biden proposal from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stake through it.
” But it ’ s largely theoretical in any case : Digging into the details of the AEI analysis , The Wall Street Journal ’ s Richard Rubin pointed out that some elements of Biden ’ s proposed changes to the tax code will be politically contentious , among both Democrats and Republicans .
“ [ W ] ill there be enough votes in Congress for all of those tax increases ?
, ” he asked .
In the end , an analysis of revenue increases “ adjusted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .

A newly updated analysis from the conservative American Enterprise Institute finds that Joe Biden’s tax plan would raise roughly $2.8 trillion over 10 years, while reducing economic growth by a modest 0.16%.
Biden has proposed raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to pay for increased spending on a wide variety of public programs. The tax hikes include raising the corporate tax rate; reversing some elements of the 2017 Republican tax cuts for households earning more than $400,000 per year; and taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income for taxpayers who report more than $1 million in income.
Who pays more: Overall, Biden’s tax plan would make the U.S. tax system more progressive, AEI’s Kyle Pomerleau and Grant Seiter say.
Businesses would see the biggest effects. “Most of the new revenue in Biden’s tax plan would come from increased business taxes ($1.9 trillion),” they write. “The largest source of new business revenue and the largest source of new revenue in the entire plan is the proposal to raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent ($1 trillion between 2021 and 2030).”
On the individual side, the tax hikes would fall almost entirely on the wealthy. “In 2021, Biden’s tax proposals would increase the tax burden on the top 5 percent of households and reduce the tax burden on the bottom 95 percent of households,” the report says. The top 1% would see their incomes reduced by 14.2%, while taxpayers in the bottom 94% of the distribution would see after-tax incomes climb by between 0.5% and 11.3%, with those in the bottom decile seeing the largest increase.
After 10 years, all households would pay slightly higher taxes, although this outcome is produced by assumptions AEI makes about corporations’ ability to pass tax hikes along to workers and consumers — assumptions that are contested by the Biden campaign and some tax experts.
Higher GDP in the long run: The AEI analysis finds that GDP would be slightly smaller after 10 years relative to the baseline, though that conclusion is due in large part to the assumption built into the model that higher taxes reduce labor supply and capital stock in the economy. Even so, in the second decade, Biden’s plan produces slightly higher GDP relative to the baseline, the analysts said, “because the increased tax revenue decreases the trajectory of US debt, which means more household savings can be used for private capital accumulation and less has to be used to service the debt interest.”
Spending plans not included: In addition to tax hikes, Biden has proposed huge increases in spending on a wide variety of social programs, but those aren’t included in the AEI analysis. However, it’s the combination of the two — a big fiscal boost from increased social spending backed by higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy – that have led many economists, including analysts at Moody’s and Goldman Sachs, to conclude that Biden’s plans would provide more economic growth than the grab-bag of proposals from the Trump campaign. “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,” analysts at Moody’s wrote last month.
No support for President Trump’s wild claims: Writing about the AEI report Wednesday, Tory Newmyer of The Washington Post noted that, “President Trump says Joe Biden’s tax plan would bring about a depression and destroy the country. Independent studies have found no support for that claim. And the latest, an updated examination of the Biden proposal from the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, should drive a stake through it.”
But it’s largely theoretical in any case: Digging into the details of the AEI analysis, The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin pointed out that some elements of Biden’s proposed changes to the tax code will be politically contentious, among both Democrats and Republicans. “[W]ill there be enough votes in Congress for all of those tax increases?,” he asked. In the end, an analysis of revenue increases “adjusted for political reality looks much smaller,” he said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-13--Covid-19 Will Cost the US $16 Trillion: Analysis

The coronavirus crisis will cost the U.S. about $ 16 trillion , according to a new analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and Harvard University economist David Cutler .
Roughly half the cost is associated with a reduction in gross domestic product that will linger for years , with the other half coming from health-oriented issues including premature death and long-term impairments .
If the estimate is accurate – and the economists say they are “ optimistically ” assuming the pandemic will have been largely contained by next fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more costly than the Great Recession .
“ Output losses of this magnitude are immense , ” the authors say .
“ The lost output in the Great Recession was only one-quarter as large .
The economic loss is more than twice the total monetary outlay for all the wars the US has fought since September 11 , 2001 , including those in Afghanistan , Iraq , and Syria .
By another metric , this cost is approximately the estimate of damages ( such as from decreased agricultural productivity and more frequent severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change.
” Given the staggering cost , policymakers should reconsider the government ’ s approach to health care , Summers and Cutler say .
“ Currently , the US prioritizes spending on acute treatment , with far less spending on public health services and infrastructure , ” they write .
“ As the nation struggles to recover from COVID-19 , investments that are made in testing , contact tracing , and isolation should be established permanently and not dismantled when the concerns about COVID-19 begin to recede .
”

The coronavirus crisis will cost the U.S. about $16 trillion, according to a new analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and Harvard University economist David Cutler.
Roughly half the cost is associated with a reduction in gross domestic product that will linger for years, with the other half coming from health-oriented issues including premature death and long-term impairments. If the estimate is accurate – and the economists say they are “optimistically” assuming the pandemic will have been largely contained by next fall – Covid-19 will end up being far more costly than the Great Recession.
“Output losses of this magnitude are immense,” the authors say. “The lost output in the Great Recession was only one-quarter as large. The economic loss is more than twice the total monetary outlay for all the wars the US has fought since September 11, 2001, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. By another metric, this cost is approximately the estimate of damages (such as from decreased agricultural productivity and more frequent severe weather events) from 50 years of climate change.”
Given the staggering cost, policymakers should reconsider the government’s approach to health care, Summers and Cutler say. “Currently, the US prioritizes spending on acute treatment, with far less spending on public health services and infrastructure,” they write. “As the nation struggles to recover from COVID-19, investments that are made in testing, contact tracing, and isolation should be established permanently and not dismantled when the concerns about COVID-19 begin to recede.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-13--Why Big Deficits Are Here to Stay (for Now)

From billions in income supplements for households to trillions in guaranteed loans for businesses , fiscal policy has taken a central role in the government ’ s response to the Covid recession .
According to Bloomberg ’ s Alaa Shahine , the new emphasis on fiscal management marks a major shift in policymaking circles , one in which central bankers are ceding the power they have held as primary managers of the economy since the 1970s .
“ Fiscal policy is the big game in town now , ” Stephen King , senior economic adviser to HSBC Holdings , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you have to accept in that sense you ’ ve lost a bit of power to the political process.
” Why fiscal policy has seen a revival .
Central bankers have a limited set of monetary tools to respond to a crisis , centering on the use of interest rates to inject liquidity into the financial system .
But those tools have little effect when interest rates are already historically low , and they do virtually nothing for workers losing their jobs and small businesses facing a crushing drop in demand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , allows lawmakers to get money directly into the hands of the unemployed and business owners , softening the blow of a recession .
And it can target specific groups that need extra help , such as restaurants , airlines , schools or hospitals .
The lessons of 2008 .
The recovery from the 2008 financial crisis was sluggish , and much of the world found itself in the position Japan had stumbled into decades earlier , when interest rates dropped so low that monetary policy had little effect .
“ It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s central banks might run out of steam , and bring fiscal policy back to the fore , ” Shahine says .
Policymakers responded to the 2008 crisis with substantial fiscal stimulus – but withdrew it too soon , most experts now say .
Since then , an increasing number of economists have changed their tune on the need to reel in fiscal stimulus quickly .
Financial markets , too , seem to have lost their concerns about increased government spending , with bond buyers , including central banks , soaking up all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and at very low rates .
Paul McCulley , the former chief economist at Pacific Investment Management , recently told Bloomberg 's Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway that he expects the expanded use of fiscal tools will be a permanent feature from now on .
“ Any pretense is over , ” McCulley said .
“ We ’ re clearly living in a fiscal-policy dominated world.
” But there ’ s always a hitch ( or two ) .
One problem for the fiscal approach is that it relies on policymakers – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most economists agree that the U.S. needs another round of stimulus spending , but lawmakers can ’ t agree on the size and scope of a new relief package .
Shahine notes that politicians ’ inhibitions about public spending are the last major barrier to deploying fiscal tools more extensively .
The other issue associated with the increasing reliance on public spending is bigger deficits , in the U.S. and other advanced economies ( see the chart below , which shows how much larger deficits are now relative to GDP ) .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good chance those deficits will continue , at least in the short run , as both economists and financial markets come to see ongoing fiscal support as essential to sustaining the recovery .

From billions in income supplements for households to trillions in guaranteed loans for businesses, fiscal policy has taken a central role in the government’s response to the Covid recession. According to Bloomberg’s Alaa Shahine, the new emphasis on fiscal management marks a major shift in policymaking circles, one in which central bankers are ceding the power they have held as primary managers of the economy since the 1970s.
“Fiscal policy is the big game in town now,” Stephen King, senior economic adviser to HSBC Holdings, told Shahine. “As a central banker, you have to accept in that sense you’ve lost a bit of power to the political process.”
Why fiscal policy has seen a revival. Central bankers have a limited set of monetary tools to respond to a crisis, centering on the use of interest rates to inject liquidity into the financial system. But those tools have little effect when interest rates are already historically low, and they do virtually nothing for workers losing their jobs and small businesses facing a crushing drop in demand.
Fiscal policy, on the other hand, allows lawmakers to get money directly into the hands of the unemployed and business owners, softening the blow of a recession. And it can target specific groups that need extra help, such as restaurants, airlines, schools or hospitals.
The lessons of 2008. The recovery from the 2008 financial crisis was sluggish, and much of the world found itself in the position Japan had stumbled into decades earlier, when interest rates dropped so low that monetary policy had little effect. “It was an early-warning sign that the world’s central banks might run out of steam, and bring fiscal policy back to the fore,” Shahine says.
Policymakers responded to the 2008 crisis with substantial fiscal stimulus – but withdrew it too soon, most experts now say. Since then, an increasing number of economists have changed their tune on the need to reel in fiscal stimulus quickly. Financial markets, too, seem to have lost their concerns about increased government spending, with bond buyers, including central banks, soaking up all the new debt the U.S. Treasury produces, and at very low rates.
Paul McCulley, the former chief economist at Pacific Investment Management, recently told Bloomberg's Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway that he expects the expanded use of fiscal tools will be a permanent feature from now on. “Any pretense is over,” McCulley said. “We’re clearly living in a fiscal-policy dominated world.”
But there’s always a hitch (or two). One problem for the fiscal approach is that it relies on policymakers – which means politics are always involved. Most economists agree that the U.S. needs another round of stimulus spending, but lawmakers can’t agree on the size and scope of a new relief package. Shahine notes that politicians’ inhibitions about public spending are the last major barrier to deploying fiscal tools more extensively.
The other issue associated with the increasing reliance on public spending is bigger deficits, in the U.S. and other advanced economies (see the chart below, which shows how much larger deficits are now relative to GDP). And it looks like there’s a good chance those deficits will continue, at least in the short run, as both economists and financial markets come to see ongoing fiscal support as essential to sustaining the recovery.


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-08--Trump’s $8 Billion Plan to Send Drug Discount Cards to Seniors

President Trump announced two weeks ago a surprise plan to send $ 200 drug-discount cards to 39 million Medicare beneficiaries , and Politico reports Thursday that officials are scrambling to execute that effort before Election Day .
The administration is hurrying to iron out the plan — which reportedly is being driven by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — and a final version is expected as soon as Friday , with announcement letters going out to seniors next week .
The cards themselves , which could be branded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start going out later in the month , though not all would be delivered before the November election .
What the plan does : The White House wants to use $ 8 billion from the Medicare trust fund to cover the cost of discount cards that 39 million Medicare beneficiaries can use to save $ 200 on prescription drugs .
The administration says that the plan will be considered a test of the effectiveness of the discount card system as it relates to drug use .
Such tests are allowed under federal law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plan satisfies the necessary requirements to qualify as a test .
A political effort ?
The political context is hard to ignore .
“ The plan to lower seniors ' drug costs comes as administration officials grapple with Trump 's falling support among older Americans , a significant threat to his re-election , ” Politico ’ s Dan Diamond said .
“ Trump is currently lagging challenger Joe Biden by as much as 27 points in recent polls among Americans ages 65 and older , a major reversal from the 2016 campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's handling of the coronavirus pandemic and his chaotic leadership style.
” Trump administration officials have denied that there is anything political about the plan .
It ’ s just “ good policy , ” said White House spokesman Judd Deere .
Rep. Frank Pallone ( D-NJ ) , chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee , described the plan as “ a shameless stunt that steals billions from Medicare in order to fund a legally dubious scheme that ’ s clearly intended to benefit President Trump ’ s campaign right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have raised questions , as well .
“ There are a lot of things that seem problematic , '' Stacie Dusetzina of Vanderbilt University told Politico .
“ It 's an incredibly large amount of money to be spending [ and ] it 's not really solving any systemic problem .
”

President Trump announced two weeks ago a surprise plan to send $200 drug-discount cards to 39 million Medicare beneficiaries, and Politico reports Thursday that officials are scrambling to execute that effort before Election Day.
The administration is hurrying to iron out the plan — which reportedly is being driven by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — and a final version is expected as soon as Friday, with announcement letters going out to seniors next week. The cards themselves, which could be branded with Trump’s name, will start going out later in the month, though not all would be delivered before the November election.
What the plan does: The White House wants to use $8 billion from the Medicare trust fund to cover the cost of discount cards that 39 million Medicare beneficiaries can use to save $200 on prescription drugs.
The administration says that the plan will be considered a test of the effectiveness of the discount card system as it relates to drug use. Such tests are allowed under federal law, although not all experts agree that the plan satisfies the necessary requirements to qualify as a test.
A political effort? The political context is hard to ignore. “The plan to lower seniors' drug costs comes as administration officials grapple with Trump's falling support among older Americans, a significant threat to his re-election,” Politico’s Dan Diamond said. “Trump is currently lagging challenger Joe Biden by as much as 27 points in recent polls among Americans ages 65 and older, a major reversal from the 2016 campaign, with seniors now voicing concerns about Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic and his chaotic leadership style.”
Trump administration officials have denied that there is anything political about the plan. It’s just “good policy,” said White House spokesman Judd Deere.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee, described the plan as “a shameless stunt that steals billions from Medicare in order to fund a legally dubious scheme that’s clearly intended to benefit President Trump’s campaign right before Election Day.”
Health care experts have raised questions, as well. “There are a lot of things that seem problematic," Stacie Dusetzina of Vanderbilt University told Politico. “It's an incredibly large amount of money to be spending [and] it's not really solving any systemic problem.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-15--Tax Rates Crushing Some Low-Wage Workers: Fed Study

Low-wage workers face shockingly high marginal tax rates as they earn more once the loss of government benefits are taken into account , according to researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta .
“ Our findings are striking , ” the researchers say .
“ One in four low-wage workers face marginal net tax rates above 70 percent , effectively locking them into poverty.
” That means that some low-wage workers will keep just $ 30 for every extra $ 100 they earn , due to tax payments and the loss of benefits such as Medicaid , food stamps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the tax rate is even higher , such as when a few hundred dollars in extra income results in the loss of thousands of dollars ’ worth of housing aid .
“ This is a perverse incentive that says you shouldn ’ t try to make yourself better , ” Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic told the Bloomberg .
“ They are not dumb .
It ’ s on us to actually change those incentives so that people understand what the potential is and move forward towards opportunity.
” As part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Atlanta Fed is working on tools that allow low-wage workers to earn more while minimizing the loss of support payments .
“ These are crazy hurdles some people are facing , ” Atlanta Fed Research Director David Altigsaid said .
“ This is a significant impediment to our capacity to move people into better and higher-paying jobs .
”

Low-wage workers face shockingly high marginal tax rates as they earn more once the loss of government benefits are taken into account, according to researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
“Our findings are striking,” the researchers say. “One in four low-wage workers face marginal net tax rates above 70 percent, effectively locking them into poverty.”
That means that some low-wage workers will keep just $30 for every extra $100 they earn, due to tax payments and the loss of benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers. In some cases, the tax rate is even higher, such as when a few hundred dollars in extra income results in the loss of thousands of dollars’ worth of housing aid.
“This is a perverse incentive that says you shouldn’t try to make yourself better,” Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic told the Bloomberg. “They are not dumb. It’s on us to actually change those incentives so that people understand what the potential is and move forward towards opportunity.”
As part of an effort to reduce intergenerational poverty, the Atlanta Fed is working on tools that allow low-wage workers to earn more while minimizing the loss of support payments. “These are crazy hurdles some people are facing,” Atlanta Fed Research Director David Altigsaid said. “This is a significant impediment to our capacity to move people into better and higher-paying jobs.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-15--McConnell Shoots Down Trump’s Call for Bigger Stimulus

President Trump said Thursday he ’ d agree to a coronavirus relief package larger than the $ 1.8 trillion his administration offered last week , but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly shot down the idea .
Asked in an interview on the Fox Business Network if he would raise his offer to Pelosi , Trump repeated a message he had tweeted earlier in the week : `` I would .
Absolutely , I would .
I would say more .
I would go higher .
Go big or go home , I said it yesterday .
Go big or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) for the lack of an agreement .
“ Nancy Pelosi doesn ’ t want to give anything .
She thinks it helps her with the election , ” Trump said .
“ We ’ re not holding it up , she ’ s holding it up.
” Asked if he would pick up the phone to call Pelosi with a higher offer , Trump attacked the speaker .
“ She 's got a lot of problems , ” he said .
“ She got a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be very hard to do anything with her .
She wants to wait ‘ til after the election.
” Trump also expressed some frustration with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , who has been negotiating with Pelosi , saying that Mnuchin had thus far failed to convince the speaker to accept a deal .
“ I ’ ve told him .
So far , he hasn ’ t come home with the bacon , '' the president said .
Pursuit of a deal continues : Mnuchin on Thursday said that Pelosi ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t make sense for the American people , ” but he also indicated Thursday he was prepared to give some ground to get a deal , saying that the White House won ’ t let differences with Pelosi over Covid testing provisions in a relief package — one obstacle the speaker has cited repeatedly — stand in the way of reaching a deal .
“ That issue is getting overblown , ” Mnuchin said Thursday morning on CNBC .
He added that the administration has agreed to $ 178 billion in health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing and contact tracing .
“ What we have been focused on is the language around testing , ” he said .
“ When I speak to Pelosi today , I ’ m going to tell her that we ’ re not going to let the testing issue stand in the way .
We ’ ll fundamentally agree with their testing language subject to some minor issues.
” Deep divisions between Trump and Senate Republicans : While Trump said in his interview that Republicans “ are willing to do ” the larger deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that isn ’ t the case .
The Republican leader has set up a vote next week on a roughly $ 500 billion GOP package , and he indicated Thursday that Senate Republicans would balk at a deal as big as Trump is floating .
“ That ’ s where the administration ’ s willing to go , ” McConnell said during an appearance in Kentucky .
“ My members think what we laid out— a half a trillion dollars , highly targeted — is the best way to go.
” Why it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reminder that any agreement between the White House and Pelosi would only be the first step in getting another relief package passed — and that deep divisions between the White House and Senate Republicans could scuttle the chances for another bill even if Mnuchin and Pelosi can reach a hard-fought deal .
Trump , meanwhile , continues to inject uncertainty into the proceedings and to provide more leverage for Pelosi as she holds out for a bigger package .
The bottom line : A pre-election deal still seems unlikely .

President Trump said Thursday he’d agree to a coronavirus relief package larger than the $1.8 trillion his administration offered last week, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly shot down the idea.
Asked in an interview on the Fox Business Network if he would raise his offer to Pelosi, Trump repeated a message he had tweeted earlier in the week: "I would. Absolutely, I would. I would say more. I would go higher. Go big or go home, I said it yesterday. Go big or go home.”
Trump sought to blame House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for the lack of an agreement. “Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want to give anything. She thinks it helps her with the election,” Trump said. “We’re not holding it up, she’s holding it up.”
Asked if he would pick up the phone to call Pelosi with a higher offer, Trump attacked the speaker. “She's got a lot of problems,” he said. “She got a lot of mental problems. And it's going to be very hard to do anything with her. She wants to wait ‘til after the election.”
Trump also expressed some frustration with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who has been negotiating with Pelosi, saying that Mnuchin had thus far failed to convince the speaker to accept a deal. “I’ve told him. So far, he hasn’t come home with the bacon," the president said.
Pursuit of a deal continues: Mnuchin on Thursday said that Pelosi’s “all or nothing approach doesn’t make sense for the American people,” but he also indicated Thursday he was prepared to give some ground to get a deal, saying that the White House won’t let differences with Pelosi over Covid testing provisions in a relief package — one obstacle the speaker has cited repeatedly — stand in the way of reaching a deal.
“That issue is getting overblown,” Mnuchin said Thursday morning on CNBC. He added that the administration has agreed to $178 billion in health care funding and $75 billion for testing and contact tracing. “What we have been focused on is the language around testing,” he said. “When I speak to Pelosi today, I’m going to tell her that we’re not going to let the testing issue stand in the way. We’ll fundamentally agree with their testing language subject to some minor issues.”
Deep divisions between Trump and Senate Republicans: While Trump said in his interview that Republicans “are willing to do” the larger deal he called for, McConnell made clear that isn’t the case. The Republican leader has set up a vote next week on a roughly $500 billion GOP package, and he indicated Thursday that Senate Republicans would balk at a deal as big as Trump is floating. “That’s where the administration’s willing to go,” McConnell said during an appearance in Kentucky. “My members think what we laid out— a half a trillion dollars, highly targeted — is the best way to go.”
Why it matters: McConnell’s comments are a reminder that any agreement between the White House and Pelosi would only be the first step in getting another relief package passed — and that deep divisions between the White House and Senate Republicans could scuttle the chances for another bill even if Mnuchin and Pelosi can reach a hard-fought deal. Trump, meanwhile, continues to inject uncertainty into the proceedings and to provide more leverage for Pelosi as she holds out for a bigger package.
The bottom line: A pre-election deal still seems unlikely.


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-15--Unemployment Claims Jump, Raising Concerns About Stalling Recovery

As talks on a coronavirus relief package drag on , the job market is signaling that the economic recovery may be stalling as Covid cases surge in states across the country .
About 898,000 people filed for state unemployment benefits in the week ending October 10 , the Labor Department announced Thursday , an increase of more than 50,000 from the week before .
On an unadjusted basis , the weekly number was the highest since July .
Another 373,000 Americans applied for benefits through the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program , the federal program that covers gig workers and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a week-over-week basis .
All told , nearly 1.3 million people made first-time claims for unemployment benefits , roughly the same as the week before .
About 25 million people are currently receiving some kind of jobless aid ( although experts say that number is almost certainly inflated to some degree by problems with the data , including double-counting and fraud ) .
Cause for concern : “ No question this report casts doubt on the recovery , ” Andrew Chamberlain , chief economist at Glassdoor , told The Washington Post .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ still dealing heavy blows to the labor market .
We ’ re nowhere near having the virus under control.
” More Covid shutdowns : “ Confirmed coronavirus cases have been rising again nationwide in the past month , likely causing more Americans to hold back from eating out , shopping and engaging in other commerce , ” the Associated Press ’ s Christopher Rugaber reported .
Evidence of a stall : “ I think we ’ ve seen the labor market recovery stall out , ” Sarah House , senior economist at Wells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she thinks “ we ’ ve seen a heightened risk of the labor market really backsliding .
”

As talks on a coronavirus relief package drag on, the job market is signaling that the economic recovery may be stalling as Covid cases surge in states across the country.
About 898,000 people filed for state unemployment benefits in the week ending October 10, the Labor Department announced Thursday, an increase of more than 50,000 from the week before. On an unadjusted basis, the weekly number was the highest since July.
Another 373,000 Americans applied for benefits through the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, the federal program that covers gig workers and the self-employed, a drop of roughly 90,000 on a week-over-week basis.
All told, nearly 1.3 million people made first-time claims for unemployment benefits, roughly the same as the week before. About 25 million people are currently receiving some kind of jobless aid (although experts say that number is almost certainly inflated to some degree by problems with the data, including double-counting and fraud).
Cause for concern: “No question this report casts doubt on the recovery,” Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor, told The Washington Post. “This is a sign covid is still dealing heavy blows to the labor market. We’re nowhere near having the virus under control.”
More Covid shutdowns: “Confirmed coronavirus cases have been rising again nationwide in the past month, likely causing more Americans to hold back from eating out, shopping and engaging in other commerce,” the Associated Press’s Christopher Rugaber reported.
Evidence of a stall: “I think we’ve seen the labor market recovery stall out,” Sarah House, senior economist at Wells Fargo, told Bloomberg, adding that she thinks “we’ve seen a heightened risk of the labor market really backsliding.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-16--US Deficit Soars to $3.1 Trillion

US Deficit Soars to $3.1 Trillion

The federal budget deficit topped $ 3.1 trillion in the 2020 fiscal year , the U.S. Treasury announced Friday , marking the largest annual deficit in U.S. history .
As a share of the economy , the deficit-to-GDP ratio rose to 16 % , the highest level since 1945 , the last year of World War II .
The huge increase from 2019 ’ s nearly $ 1 trillion deficit was driven by the government ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic , which included massive levels of income support for individuals and grants and loans for businesses .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center told The Wall Street Journal .
“ Today ’ s deficit figure is the result of six months of fighting the pandemic and its economic fallout.
” In the 2020 fiscal year , which concluded at the end of September , the government spent about $ 6.5 trillion – roughly $ 2 trillion more than the $ 4.5 trillion spent in 2019 .
Revenues in 2020 came to $ 3.4 trillion , modestly lower than the year before .
The cost of servicing the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low rates , with net interest costs dropping by nearly $ 31 billion , to $ 345 billion .
More deficits ahead : Although a new , trillion-dollar coronavirus package has been hung up in negotiations in Washington , some kind of relief bill is expected to pass in the next few weeks or months in an effort to prevent the economy from sliding backward .
But the economy is already in a difficult place as winter approaches , Brian Riedl of the conservative Manhattan Institute told The Washington Post , with much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The growth is leveling off .
The economic recovery is leveling off , ” he said .
“ Which means the deficit numbers will continue to be pretty bad .
”

The federal budget deficit topped $3.1 trillion in the 2020 fiscal year, the U.S. Treasury announced Friday, marking the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
As a share of the economy, the deficit-to-GDP ratio rose to 16%, the highest level since 1945, the last year of World War II.
The huge increase from 2019’s nearly $1 trillion deficit was driven by the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, which included massive levels of income support for individuals and grants and loans for businesses. “Unprecedented times call for unprecedented deficits,” William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center told The Wall Street Journal. “Today’s deficit figure is the result of six months of fighting the pandemic and its economic fallout.”
In the 2020 fiscal year, which concluded at the end of September, the government spent about $6.5 trillion – roughly $2 trillion more than the $4.5 trillion spent in 2019. Revenues in 2020 came to $3.4 trillion, modestly lower than the year before.
The cost of servicing the national debt fell, however, thanks to low rates, with net interest costs dropping by nearly $31 billion, to $345 billion.
More deficits ahead: Although a new, trillion-dollar coronavirus package has been hung up in negotiations in Washington, some kind of relief bill is expected to pass in the next few weeks or months in an effort to prevent the economy from sliding backward.
But the economy is already in a difficult place as winter approaches, Brian Riedl of the conservative Manhattan Institute told The Washington Post, with much of the easy recovery already behind us. “The growth is leveling off. The economic recovery is leveling off,” he said. “Which means the deficit numbers will continue to be pretty bad.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-16--Pelosi Cites Progress, but Warns of Poison Pills in Stimulus Deal

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said after a nearly 90-minute negotiating session Thursday that they had made some progress toward a coronavirus relief package .
In particular , they said that the White House would accept Pelosi ’ s demands regarding language for a national coronavirus testing plan , with only “ minor ” changes .
Don ’ t get your hopes up , though .
Pelosi told fellow Democrats that , even as the two sides near agreement on that issue , they remain split on other elements .
“ Many other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a letter to House Democrats Thursday evening .
“ These include but are not limited to funding for state and local government , tax benefits for working families , support for vulnerable small businesses , and child care funding.
” Pelosi added that the White House proposal “ contains multiple deadly poison pills , ” including a provision shielding businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits , which Pelosi said “ forces workers to risk their lives in unsafe workplaces with no legal recourse.
” White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Friday said that Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting she doesn ’ t really want to compromise .
Kudlow told Fox Business that , even if the parties reach a deal , it would be “ almost impossible ” to pass a comprehensive relief package before the November elections .
`` Maybe some of it could be executed , '' he said .
`` But you certainly could n't get a grand , large deal.
” As we mentioned before , Senate Republicans remain a significant obstacle .
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell made clear yesterday that his caucus objects to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.8 trillion or more that Trump has proposed in urging lawmakers to “ go big or go home.
” “ He ’ s talking about a much larger amount than I can sell to my members , ” McConnell said Thursday .
McConnell plans to put a roughly $ 500 billion package on the Senate floor next week .
`` What I ’ m going to put in the floor is what Senate Republicans , 52 out 53 of us , feel like is an appropriate response , '' McConnell said .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on between the secretary of the Treasury and the speaker about the higher amount .
That ’ s not what I ’ m gon na put on the floor.
” Would presidential pressure make a difference ?
Administration officials suggested that Trump could overcome those objections .
“ If Speaker Pelosi wanted a deal I think we could round up enough Senate Republicans to get a deal , ” Kudlow said Friday .
Mnuchin similarly suggested that Trump would press McConnell if a deal was reached .
“ The Secretary indicated that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should an agreement be reached , ” a Pelosi spokesman wrote on Twitter , describing Thursday ’ s talks .
It ’ s not clear how much influence Trump could have at this point .
“ Trump ’ s erratic approach to the negotiations makes it uncertain whether he can or would exert the necessary political pressure to move Senate Republicans to take a vote many of them do not want to take , especially at a moment when the president is down in polls and some Republicans have begun to distance themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports .
Trump himself said at his NBC town hall Thursday night that he hasn ’ t yet pressed Senate Republicans , blaming Pelosi for the lack of a deal .
Talking Points Memo highlighted this exchange : “ So far , they have not said they would , ” Guthrie pressed .
“ Because I haven ’ t asked them to , because I can ’ t get through Nancy Pelosi , ” Trump said .
Trump ’ s changing positions appear to have only strengthened Pelosi ’ s resolve to secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Pelosi told members of her caucus Thursday afternoon that Democrats now have “ maximum leverage ” to get the package they want .
“ The president ’ s even said this morning that he wants more .
He said the night before that , ‘ Go big or go home , ’ ” Pelosi reportedly said .
“ So , this is not the time to say , ‘ Okay , let ’ s fold.
’ This is what we have been building up to.
” The bottom line : Mnuchin is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the coming days , so while the two sides are still talking , a deal isn ’ t likely to come together quickly .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said after a nearly 90-minute negotiating session Thursday that they had made some progress toward a coronavirus relief package. In particular, they said that the White House would accept Pelosi’s demands regarding language for a national coronavirus testing plan, with only “minor” changes.
Don’t get your hopes up, though.
Pelosi told fellow Democrats that, even as the two sides near agreement on that issue, they remain split on other elements. “Many other disagreements remain,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to House Democrats Thursday evening. “These include but are not limited to funding for state and local government, tax benefits for working families, support for vulnerable small businesses, and child care funding.”
Pelosi added that the White House proposal “contains multiple deadly poison pills,” including a provision shielding businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits, which Pelosi said “forces workers to risk their lives in unsafe workplaces with no legal recourse.”
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Friday said that Pelosi was moving the goalposts in talks, suggesting she doesn’t really want to compromise. Kudlow told Fox Business that, even if the parties reach a deal, it would be “almost impossible” to pass a comprehensive relief package before the November elections. "Maybe some of it could be executed," he said. "But you certainly couldn't get a grand, large deal.”
As we mentioned before, Senate Republicans remain a significant obstacle. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell made clear yesterday that his caucus objects to a package as big as the $1.8 trillion or more that Trump has proposed in urging lawmakers to “go big or go home.”
“He’s talking about a much larger amount than I can sell to my members,” McConnell said Thursday. McConnell plans to put a roughly $500 billion package on the Senate floor next week.
"What I’m going to put in the floor is what Senate Republicans, 52 out 53 of us, feel like is an appropriate response," McConnell said. "You are correct there were discussions going on between the secretary of the Treasury and the speaker about the higher amount. That’s not what I’m gonna put on the floor.”
Would presidential pressure make a difference? Administration officials suggested that Trump could overcome those objections. “If Speaker Pelosi wanted a deal I think we could round up enough Senate Republicans to get a deal,” Kudlow said Friday. Mnuchin similarly suggested that Trump would press McConnell if a deal was reached. “The Secretary indicated that the President would weigh in with Leader McConnell should an agreement be reached,” a Pelosi spokesman wrote on Twitter, describing Thursday’s talks.
It’s not clear how much influence Trump could have at this point. “Trump’s erratic approach to the negotiations makes it uncertain whether he can or would exert the necessary political pressure to move Senate Republicans to take a vote many of them do not want to take, especially at a moment when the president is down in polls and some Republicans have begun to distance themselves from him,” The Washington Post reports.
Trump himself said at his NBC town hall Thursday night that he hasn’t yet pressed Senate Republicans, blaming Pelosi for the lack of a deal. Talking Points Memo highlighted this exchange:
“I’m ready to sign a big beautiful stimulus,” Trump told NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie.
“Are Senate Republicans with you?” Guthrie asked.
“They’ll go,” Trump responded.
“So far, they have not said they would,” Guthrie pressed.
“Because I haven’t asked them to, because I can’t get through Nancy Pelosi,” Trump said.
Trump’s changing positions appear to have only strengthened Pelosi’s resolve to secure a larger deal. The Post reports that Pelosi told members of her caucus Thursday afternoon that Democrats now have “maximum leverage” to get the package they want.
“The president’s even said this morning that he wants more. He said the night before that, ‘Go big or go home,’” Pelosi reportedly said.
“So, this is not the time to say, ‘Okay, let’s fold.’ This is what we have been building up to.”
The bottom line: Mnuchin is expected to travel to the Middle East in the coming days, so while the two sides are still talking, a deal isn’t likely to come together quickly.


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-15--8 Million More in Poverty Since May as Aid Dries Up: Report

About 8 million people have slipped into poverty since May , according to a new report from researchers at the @ @ @ @ @ Policy at Columbia University .
The increase in poverty reverses the dynamics seen in the @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , when the $ 2 trillion Cares Act passed helped lift millions of people @ @ @ @ @ massive federal support provided by the legislation – including $ 1,200 stimulus checks and $ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment benefits , among other things – has now largely dried up , leaving more @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic began .
“ The Cares Act was unusually successful , but now it @ @ @ @ @ a lot more people are poor , ” Zachary Parolin , an author of the @ @ @ @ @ New York Times .
Using a different definition of poverty , a separate report from @ @ @ @ @ Chicago and Notre Dame University found that poverty has grown by 6 million in the @ @ @ @ @ Times said .

About 8 million people have slipped into poverty since May, according to a new report from researchers at the Center on Poverty & Social Policy at Columbia University.
The increase in poverty reverses the dynamics seen in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, when the $2 trillion Cares Act passed helped lift millions of people out of poverty. The massive federal support provided by the legislation – including $1,200 stimulus checks and $600 per week in extra unemployment benefits, among other things – has now largely dried up, leaving more people in poverty than before the pandemic began.
“The Cares Act was unusually successful, but now it’s gone, and a lot more people are poor,” Zachary Parolin, an author of the Columbia report, told The New York Times.
Using a different definition of poverty, a separate report from researchers from the University of Chicago and Notre Dame University found that poverty has grown by 6 million in the last three months, the Times said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-19--Stimulus Deal or No Deal? Pelosi Sets Tuesday Deadline

It may not have a made-for-TV theme song , but Nancy Pelosi ’ s ultimatum does pack some dramatic punch : 48 hours or we ’ re done .
House Speaker Pelosi ( D-CA ) said Sunday that a deal must be reached within 48 hours if a coronavirus relief package is to pass before the election .
“ We do n't have agreement in the language yet , but I 'm hopeful , ” she told ABC ’ s George Stephanopoulos .
“ I 'm optimistic because , again , we ’ ve been back and forth on all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steven Mnuchin have been going round and round over the potentially massive bill for weeks , with Democrats lowering their bid to $ 2.2 trillion and the White House offering a package worth $ 1.8 trillion .
But money isn ’ t the only thing keeping the sides apart .
Crucial details about specific provisions of the legislation are still in dispute , including the federal response to the still uncontrolled pandemic .
“ The testing .
The tracing .
The treatment .
The mask-wearing .
The separation .
The sanitation .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi said .
In a call with Democratic leaders Monday , Pelosi said there were still numerous sticking points between the two sides , including aid for state and local governments , unemployment payments , child care funding and various health care provisions .
The liability protections for businesses that Republicans want look like a particularly difficult issue , with one lawmaker reportedly saying that “ there is n't a single Democrat who could vote for a bill with those provisions.
” Pelosi and Mnuchin “ continued to narrow their differences ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi spokesperson said .
“ The Speaker continues to hope that , by the end of the day Tuesday , we will have clarity on whether we will be able to pass a bill before the election .
The two principals will speak again tomorrow and staff work will continue around the clock.
” Trump says he wants even more : Over the weekend , President Trump said he would match the Democrats on spending , or even raise their offer .
“ I 'd go higher than her number , who knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you said a trillion-eight , two trillion , if you said two trillion-two , so many numbers — I 'm willing to go higher than that , because it was n't the people 's fault , ” Trump told Charles Benson of Milwaukee station WTMJ .
Trump is willing to “ go pretty far ” to make a deal , White House spokesperson Alyssa Farah said Monday , adding that the Trump team isn ’ t concerned about Pelosi ’ s timeframe .
“ This 48-hour deadline is really an artificial deadline .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to get it to them whether it ’ s 72 hours , 24 hours or longer , ” Farah said .
McConnell says he ’ ll consider it : Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) has been cool to Trump ’ s call for a major deal , saying instead that Senate Republicans would support a much smaller package , which he plans to bring up for votes this week .
But McConnell did leave the door open , if only a crack , to a bigger deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House reach a bipartisan agreement with the administration , the Senate would of course consider it.
” ( White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows reportedly said that McConnell would bring any such deal to the floor for a vote – a step further than merely “ considering ” it – but McConnell has not confirmed that stance publicly . )
The odds are still very long : While the politicians keep talking up a potential deal , most observers have concluded that it will be very difficult to reach an agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politico ’ s Ben White said Monday that reaching a deal before the election “ seems like a near impossibility.
” While a deal is not entirely off the table , the signs all point to failure , despite the ongoing drama .
“ It all feels like theater of the absurd at this point , ” White said Monday .
White also highlighted a comment from Isaac Boltansky of the investment bank Compass Point : “ When it comes to the stimulus talks we are still where we have been for months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of slight progress .
.
.
are little more than mirages in the swamp .
”

It may not have a made-for-TV theme song, but Nancy Pelosi’s ultimatum does pack some dramatic punch: 48 hours or we’re done.
House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) said Sunday that a deal must be reached within 48 hours if a coronavirus relief package is to pass before the election. “We don't have agreement in the language yet, but I'm hopeful,” she told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “I'm optimistic because, again, we’ve been back and forth on all of this.”
Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have been going round and round over the potentially massive bill for weeks, with Democrats lowering their bid to $2.2 trillion and the White House offering a package worth $1.8 trillion. But money isn’t the only thing keeping the sides apart. Crucial details about specific provisions of the legislation are still in dispute, including the federal response to the still uncontrolled pandemic. “The testing. The tracing. The treatment. The mask-wearing. The separation. The sanitation. And all that goes with it,” Pelosi said.
In a call with Democratic leaders Monday, Pelosi said there were still numerous sticking points between the two sides, including aid for state and local governments, unemployment payments, child care funding and various health care provisions. The liability protections for businesses that Republicans want look like a particularly difficult issue, with one lawmaker reportedly saying that “there isn't a single Democrat who could vote for a bill with those provisions.”
Pelosi and Mnuchin “continued to narrow their differences” in a call on Monday afternoon, a Pelosi spokesperson said. “The Speaker continues to hope that, by the end of the day Tuesday, we will have clarity on whether we will be able to pass a bill before the election. The two principals will speak again tomorrow and staff work will continue around the clock.”
Trump says he wants even more: Over the weekend, President Trump said he would match the Democrats on spending, or even raise their offer. “I'd go higher than her number, who knows what her number is, but if you said a trillion-eight, two trillion, if you said two trillion-two, so many numbers — I'm willing to go higher than that, because it wasn't the people's fault,” Trump told Charles Benson of Milwaukee station WTMJ.
Trump is willing to “go pretty far” to make a deal, White House spokesperson Alyssa Farah said Monday, adding that the Trump team isn’t concerned about Pelosi’s timeframe. “This 48-hour deadline is really an artificial deadline. The American people need help. We’re going to get it to them whether it’s 72 hours, 24 hours or longer,” Farah said.
McConnell says he’ll consider it: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been cool to Trump’s call for a major deal, saying instead that Senate Republicans would support a much smaller package, which he plans to bring up for votes this week. But McConnell did leave the door open, if only a crack, to a bigger deal: “If Speaker Pelosi ever lets the House reach a bipartisan agreement with the administration, the Senate would of course consider it.” (White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows reportedly said that McConnell would bring any such deal to the floor for a vote – a step further than merely “considering” it – but McConnell has not confirmed that stance publicly.)
The odds are still very long: While the politicians keep talking up a potential deal, most observers have concluded that it will be very difficult to reach an agreement, at least before the election.
Politico’s Ben White said Monday that reaching a deal before the election “seems like a near impossibility.” While a deal is not entirely off the table, the signs all point to failure, despite the ongoing drama. “It all feels like theater of the absurd at this point,” White said Monday.
White also highlighted a comment from Isaac Boltansky of the investment bank Compass Point: “When it comes to the stimulus talks we are still where we have been for months: absolutely nowhere. Even the moments of slight progress . . . are little more than mirages in the swamp.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-15--Biden Tax Plan Would Raise $2.4 Trillion Over a Decade: TPC

Updating its analysis of Joe Biden ’ s tax proposals , the centrist Tax Policy Center said Thursday that the @ @ @ @ @ plans would generate about $ 2.4 trillion over 10 years .
The new analysis reduces @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s tax proposal from the $ 4 trillion projected in its March analysis @ @ @ @ @ changing economic conditions amid the coronavirus recession and in part to new proposals from the @ @ @ @ @ .
Echoing the conclusions reached by the more conservative American Enterprise Institute earlier this week @ @ @ @ @ that the tax increases Biden has proposed would fall overwhelmingly on businesses and the wealthy @ @ @ @ @ nearly all those tax increases would fall on high income households , ” TPC ’ @ @ @ @ @ “ In 2022 , on average , all but the highest-income 20 percent would get @ @ @ @ @ ’ s plan , while the top 1 percent -- those making about $ 790,000 @ @ @ @ @ substantial reductions in their after-tax incomes .
”

Updating its analysis of Joe Biden’s tax proposals, the centrist Tax Policy Center said Thursday that the former vice president’s plans would generate about $2.4 trillion over 10 years.
The new analysis reduces the estimated revenue bump from Biden’s tax proposal from the $4 trillion projected in its March analysis, due in part to changing economic conditions amid the coronavirus recession and in part to new proposals from the candidate, among other factors.
Echoing the conclusions reached by the more conservative American Enterprise Institute earlier this week, the TPC analysis finds that the tax increases Biden has proposed would fall overwhelmingly on businesses and the wealthy. “The burden of nearly all those tax increases would fall on high income households,” TPC’s Howard Gleckman said. “In 2022, on average, all but the highest-income 20 percent would get a tax cut under Biden’s plan, while the top 1 percent -- those making about $790,000 or more -- would see substantial reductions in their after-tax incomes.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-20--McConnell Warns White House Against Pre-Election Stimulus Deal: Report

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) said Tuesday that lawmakers are moving ahead with a draft of a new coronavirus stimulus bill , despite a lack of agreement on some key provisions .
Yet even as Pelosi insisted she and the Trump administration are “ on a path ” to a deal and that talks could continue beyond her self-imposed Tuesday deadline , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) reportedly told fellow Republicans that he had warned the White House against agreeing to a deal before the election for fear of dividing his caucus and delaying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett .
Inching ahead : After speaking with Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin by telephone Tuesday afternoon , Pelosi said the two sides had continued to make progress , and she downplayed the Tuesday evening deadline for reaching a deal she herself had set last weekend .
“ It isn ’ t that this day was a day that we would have a deal , it was a day that we would have our terms on the table to be able to go to the next step , ” Pelosi said .
She told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be reached by the end of the week .
Big issues remain : Pelosi said that while the White House team had “ come a long way ” toward accepting Democrats ’ demands for more robust Covid-19 testing and tracing efforts in the legislation , two major issues continued to vex negotiators : liability protections for businesses that Republicans want and significant aid for state and local governments that Democrats want .
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said the White House had upped its offer to $ 1.88 trillion , moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seeking , though he also made it clear that there were still major hurdles to cross .
“ I want to stress : We ’ re not just down to a difference of language and a few dollars .
We still have a ways to go , ” Meadows said .
Trump lobbies again : In a morning interview with Fox News , President Trump reiterated his call for a substantial coronavirus relief bill .
“ It ’ s very simple .
I want to do it even bigger than the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not every Republican agrees with me , but they will .
But I want to do it even bigger than the Democrats , because this is money going to people that did not deserve what happened to them coming out of China.
” Senate could stand in the way : Although House Democrats and the White House continue to push for a deal , all of their efforts could be for naught if the Republican-controlled Senate fails to support whatever agreement is reached .
McConnell said Tuesday that he would allow any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ at some point ” — perhaps after the election — and only if Trump says he ’ ll sign it .
“ What I ’ m telling you is that if such a deal were to clear the House , obviously with the presidential signature promised , we would put it on the floor of the Senate and let the Senate consider it , '' McConnell told reporters , according to Politico .
But resistance among Republicans means it ’ s not clear a deal would pass the Senate .
• Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Republican ’ s “ natural instinct , depending on how big it is , and what ’ s in it , is probably going to be to be against it.
” He added , “ I think we ’ re going to have a hard time finding 13 votes for anything , ” referring to the number of Republicans that would be needed to vote with Democrats to pass a sizable relief bill .
( Told about the senator ’ s comments , Trump said , “ Well , we ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) • Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah : “ I think it 's very unlikely that a number of that level would make it through the Senate , and I do n't support something of that level .
Something far more targeted ...
I 'd like to see done and I 'd like to see done as quick as possible.
” • Asked if Republican senators would support a $ 1.8 trillion relief bill , Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said , “ If it includes blue state bailout money then I 'd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That 's probably a red line for this caucus including for me.
” The negative outlook on the viability of a deal isn ’ t universal , however .
Sen. Mike Braun ( R-IN ) said that while he would oppose it , there ’ s a chance a $ 2 trillion bill could actually get through the Senate .
“ You ’ ll lose a lot of Republicans on whatever that is , ” Braun said .
“ If they bring it up for a vote , I ’ m guessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the finish line.
” The bottom line : A pre-election relief package still appears unlikely , especially given McConnell ’ s opposition and the limited time left .
“ McConnell ’ s stance could kill any chances for passing a new relief deal in the two weeks left before the election , ” The Washington Post ’ s Jeff Stein and Erica Werner report .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Tuesday that lawmakers are moving ahead with a draft of a new coronavirus stimulus bill, despite a lack of agreement on some key provisions.
Yet even as Pelosi insisted she and the Trump administration are “on a path” to a deal and that talks could continue beyond her self-imposed Tuesday deadline, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reportedly told fellow Republicans that he had warned the White House against agreeing to a deal before the election for fear of dividing his caucus and delaying the Supreme Court confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Inching ahead: After speaking with Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin by telephone Tuesday afternoon, Pelosi said the two sides had continued to make progress, and she downplayed the Tuesday evening deadline for reaching a deal she herself had set last weekend.
“It isn’t that this day was a day that we would have a deal, it was a day that we would have our terms on the table to be able to go to the next step,” Pelosi said.
She told reporters that she hoped a deal could be reached by the end of the week.
Big issues remain: Pelosi said that while the White House team had “come a long way” toward accepting Democrats’ demands for more robust Covid-19 testing and tracing efforts in the legislation, two major issues continued to vex negotiators: liability protections for businesses that Republicans want and significant aid for state and local governments that Democrats want.
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said the White House had upped its offer to $1.88 trillion, moving closer to the $2.2 trillion Democrats are seeking, though he also made it clear that there were still major hurdles to cross. “I want to stress: We’re not just down to a difference of language and a few dollars. We still have a ways to go,” Meadows said.
Trump lobbies again: In a morning interview with Fox News, President Trump reiterated his call for a substantial coronavirus relief bill. “It’s very simple. I want to do it even bigger than the Democrats," Trump said. “Now, not every Republican agrees with me, but they will. But I want to do it even bigger than the Democrats, because this is money going to people that did not deserve what happened to them coming out of China.”
Senate could stand in the way: Although House Democrats and the White House continue to push for a deal, all of their efforts could be for naught if the Republican-controlled Senate fails to support whatever agreement is reached.
McConnell said Tuesday that he would allow any deal to come up for a vote “at some point” — perhaps after the election — and only if Trump says he’ll sign it. “What I’m telling you is that if such a deal were to clear the House, obviously with the presidential signature promised, we would put it on the floor of the Senate and let the Senate consider it," McConnell told reporters, according to Politico.
But resistance among Republicans means it’s not clear a deal would pass the Senate.
Senate Whip John Thune of South Dakota said that Republican’s “natural instinct, depending on how big it is, and what’s in it, is probably going to be to be against it.” He added, “I think we’re going to have a hard time finding 13 votes for anything,” referring to the number of Republicans that would be needed to vote with Democrats to pass a sizable relief bill. (Told about the senator’s comments, Trump said, “Well, we’ll have to talk to Sen. Thune.”)
Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah: “I think it's very unlikely that a number of that level would make it through the Senate, and I don't support something of that level. Something far more targeted ... I'd like to see done and I'd like to see done as quick as possible.”
Asked if Republican senators would support a $1.8 trillion relief bill, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said, “If it includes blue state bailout money then I'd say that's probably a hard no. That's probably a red line for this caucus including for me.”
The negative outlook on the viability of a deal isn’t universal, however. Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) said that while he would oppose it, there’s a chance a $2 trillion bill could actually get through the Senate.
“You’ll lose a lot of Republicans on whatever that is,” Braun said. “If they bring it up for a vote, I’m guessing there will be enough to get it across the finish line.”
The bottom line: A pre-election relief package still appears unlikely, especially given McConnell’s opposition and the limited time left. “McConnell’s stance could kill any chances for passing a new relief deal in the two weeks left before the election,” The Washington Post’s Jeff Stein and Erica Werner report.


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-19--Court Rejects Trump Effort to Cut Food Stamps

A federal judge on Sunday rejected a Trump administration plan to cut $ 5.5 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance @ @ @ @ @ years .
The proposed rule change would allow the Department of Agriculture to restrict states @ @ @ @ @ requirements for food stamp beneficiaries in areas facing severe economic distress – a move that @ @ @ @ @ the nutrition assistance program .
In what The Washington Post called a “ scathing ” @ @ @ @ @ Judge Beryl A. Howell said the administration had failed to justify the effect the changes @ @ @ @ @ food stamp recipients – a failure made worse by the growing importance of the program @ @ @ @ @

A federal judge on Sunday rejected a Trump administration plan to cut $5.5 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program over the next five years. The proposed rule change would allow the Department of Agriculture to restrict states’ abilities to waive work requirements for food stamp beneficiaries in areas facing severe economic distress – a move that could remove 700,000 people from the nutrition assistance program.
In what The Washington Post called a “scathing” opinion, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell said the administration had failed to justify the effect the changes would have on thousands of food stamp recipients – a failure made worse by the growing importance of the program amid the coronavirus pandemic.


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-19--2021 Stimulus Size Hinges on Senate More Than President: Goldman Sachs

The election contest between President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden has been called the most consequential of our lifetime — and more voters say the race matters to them than in decades past .
But when it comes to the size and scope of any coronavirus relief package that might pass in 2021 — because , let ’ s face it , it ’ s probably not happening this year — who controls the Senate will mean more than who ’ s president , Goldman Sachs says .
“ Next year , fiscal policy depends on the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depends more on the outcome of Senate elections than the presidential election result , ” Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips wrote in a research note Monday .
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House are working on a roughly $ 2 trillion package , many Senate Republicans oppose spending that much and are instead set to vote on a roughly $ 500 billion plan .
“ Regardless of who wins the White House , if the Senate remains under Republican control we would expect Congress to enact a stimulus proposal much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than to either President Trump ’ s or Speaker Pelosi ’ s , ” Phillips says .
Democratic control of Congress and the White House would likely result in the greatest increase in spending , with a stimulus of about $ 2.5 trillion likely , Phillips adds .
“ This would likely include a stimulus package in Q1 , followed by infrastructure and climate legislation .
In this scenario , we would expect legislation expanding health and other benefits , financed by tax increases , to pass in Q3.
” The size of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter , Phillips argues , with a narrow edge ( 50 or 51 seats ) likely resulting in less fiscal stimulus than a more sizable majority .
If Republicans hold onto the Senate , the Goldman Sachs economist expects Republicans to look to limit the size of any stimulus bill , with the final package likely coming in “ well under $ 1 trillion .
”

The election contest between President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden has been called the most consequential of our lifetime — and more voters say the race matters to them than in decades past. But when it comes to the size and scope of any coronavirus relief package that might pass in 2021 — because, let’s face it, it’s probably not happening this year — who controls the Senate will mean more than who’s president, Goldman Sachs says.
“Next year, fiscal policy depends on the election outcome, but in our view it depends more on the outcome of Senate elections than the presidential election result,” Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips wrote in a research note Monday. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House are working on a roughly $2 trillion package, many Senate Republicans oppose spending that much and are instead set to vote on a roughly $500 billion plan.
“Regardless of who wins the White House, if the Senate remains under Republican control we would expect Congress to enact a stimulus proposal much closer to the current Senate Republican proposal than to either President Trump’s or Speaker Pelosi’s,” Phillips says.
Democratic control of Congress and the White House would likely result in the greatest increase in spending, with a stimulus of about $2.5 trillion likely, Phillips adds. “This would likely include a stimulus package in Q1, followed by infrastructure and climate legislation. In this scenario, we would expect legislation expanding health and other benefits, financed by tax increases, to pass in Q3.”
The size of a potential Democratic Senate majority will also matter, Phillips argues, with a narrow edge (50 or 51 seats) likely resulting in less fiscal stimulus than a more sizable majority.
If Republicans hold onto the Senate, the Goldman Sachs economist expects Republicans to look to limit the size of any stimulus bill, with the final package likely coming in “well under $1 trillion.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-16--Most Americans Don’t Want Protections for Pre-Existing Conditions Overturned

President Trump insists that he has a plan to protect people with pre-existing conditions if the Supreme Court invalidates the Affordable Care Act – something that could happen just after the election , thanks to a lawsuit by Republican attorneys general that is supported by the White House .
But according to new poll data from the Kaiser Family Foundation , most Americans don ’ t believe him .
“ Slightly more than half ( 53 % ) including majorities of Democrats ( 90 % ) and independents ( 57 % ) say they ‘ do not think President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people with pre-existing health conditions , ’ ” Kaiser researchers said Friday .
The majority of Republicans , however , do trust the president on the issue , with 85 % saying they think Trump “ has a plan.
” When it comes to maintaining protections for people who have pre-existing conditions – protections that were established by the Affordable Care Act and would no longer be valid if the Supreme Court invalidates the law , as the Trump administration is seeking – opinions are even clearer : the great majority of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturned .
“ Eight in ten adults ( 79 % ) say they do not want to see the Supreme Court overturn the protections for people with pre-existing conditions established by the Affordable Care Act and a majority of U.S. adults ( 58 % ) also say they do not want to see the Supreme Court overturn the entire 2010 law , ” Kaiser researchers said .
“ Majorities of Republicans ( 66 % ) , independents ( 81 % ) , and nine in ten Democrats ( 91 % ) say they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court overturn the pre-existing condition protections in the ACA .
Nine in ten Democrats ( 89 % ) and two-thirds of independent ( 66 % ) also say they do not want to see the Supreme Court overturn the entire law while three-fourths of Republicans ( 76 % ) say they would like to see the entire law overturned.
” The number of people who say they don ’ t want the protections overturned has been increasing dramatically , KFF said , with percentages rising by double digits for respondents in both parties @ @ @ @ @ @

President Trump insists that he has a plan to protect people with pre-existing conditions if the Supreme Court invalidates the Affordable Care Act – something that could happen just after the election, thanks to a lawsuit by Republican attorneys general that is supported by the White House. But according to new poll data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, most Americans don’t believe him.
“Slightly more than half (53%) including majorities of Democrats (90%) and independents (57%) say they ‘do not think President Trump has a plan to maintain protections for people with pre-existing health conditions,’” Kaiser researchers said Friday. The majority of Republicans, however, do trust the president on the issue, with 85% saying they think Trump “has a plan.”
When it comes to maintaining protections for people who have pre-existing conditions – protections that were established by the Affordable Care Act and would no longer be valid if the Supreme Court invalidates the law, as the Trump administration is seeking – opinions are even clearer: the great majority of Americans do not want to see those protections overturned.
“Eight in ten adults (79%) say they do not want to see the Supreme Court overturn the protections for people with pre-existing conditions established by the Affordable Care Act and a majority of U.S. adults (58%) also say they do not want to see the Supreme Court overturn the entire 2010 law,” Kaiser researchers said. “Majorities of Republicans (66%), independents (81%), and nine in ten Democrats (91%) say they do not want to see the Supreme Court overturn the pre-existing condition protections in the ACA. Nine in ten Democrats (89%) and two-thirds of independent (66%) also say they do not want to see the Supreme Court overturn the entire law while three-fourths of Republicans (76%) say they would like to see the entire law overturned.”
The number of people who say they don’t want the protections overturned has been increasing dramatically, KFF said, with percentages rising by double digits for respondents in both parties over the last 11 months.


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-23--A Bad Time for Biden’s Tax Hikes? Why Joe Says No

When he ’ s not slinging dubious accusations of corruption , attacking Joe Biden ’ s son , Hunter , or propagating conspiracy theories , President Trump has frequently been hitting the former vice president on his tax plans , warning that they will prompt an economic depression .
“ Remember , BIDEN is going to raise your taxes at a level never seen before .
This will not only be very costly for you , it will destroy our economy , which is coming back very rapidly , ” Trump tweeted Wednesday .
He later added : “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the typical American ’ s income by $ 6,500 per year .
They will raise TAXES by $ 4 TRILLION DOLLARS – triggering a mass exodus of jobs out of America and into foreign countries.
” The facts : Biden has proposed raising the corporate tax rate from 21 % to 28 % ; raising the top individual income tax rate from 37 % to 39.6 % ; lifting the income cap on Social Security payroll taxes ; and taxing capital gains at regular income rates for those making more than $ 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he will not raise taxes on people making less than $ 400,000 a year .
Independent analyses have found that Biden ’ s tax plans would raise about $ 2.5 trillion in revenue over 10 years , with the burden of those higher taxes falling almost entirely on businesses and high earners — and with relatively little effect on economic growth .
For more details , see here , here , here or here .
On the other hand , former Trump White House economists Kevin Hassett and Casey B. Mulligan released a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s plans would result in about 5 million fewer jobs and about $ 2.6 trillion less in gross domestic product by 2030 .
The report estimated that Biden ’ s agenda would cost the median family about $ 6,500 in income by 2030 , the source for Trump ’ s claim on the stump .
But the methodology of that study has come under criticism for unfairly penalizing Biden for tax cuts set to expire as part of the 2017 Republican tax law .
“ I ’ m trying not to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve put their thumb on the scale in that way , ” Rich Prisinzano , director of policy analysis for the Penn Wharton Budget Model , tells Bloomberg Businessweek .
A bad time for tax hikes ?
The bigger question surrounding Biden ’ s plan at the moment is whether it ’ s would be wise to raise taxes when the economy has been weakened by the coronavirus pandemic .
Asked about that during his ABC town hall last week , Biden said : “ Absolutely.
” The Biden camp argues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the former vice president proposes to fund through tax hikes would pay off with stronger growth — though Biden acknowledged he would still need to get the congressional votes to pass such legislation .
The New York Times ’ s Jim Tankersley and Thomas Kaplan explained the debate earlier this week : “ Republicans have long asserted that any Democratic proposals to raise taxes would hurt the economy , regardless of whether it was booming or ailing .
In recent years , including in the Democratic presidential primaries this year , Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposite : that raising taxes on the rich to fund government spending that bolsters the productivity of the United States economy will accelerate economic growth.
” Stimulus first : Even as Biden defends his tax-hike proposals , The Washington Post ’ s Jeff Stein reports that the former vice president isn ’ t likely to pursue those plans as part of any short-term stimulus meant to fuel recovery from the effects of the pandemic .
“ However , the former vice president would likely aim to include his tax increases if Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as expansions in child care , health care or education , ” Stein writes , citing two sources familiar with the campaign ’ s thinking .
“ A Biden campaign aide confirmed that his commitment to paying for spending priorities did not include short-term stimulus measures.
” The bottom line : The economic arguments are one thing , but don ’ t ignore the political challenges inevitably involved with just about any tax hikes .
As Stein suggests : “ Biden may still face significant political obstacles in securing passage of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party controls both the House and the Senate .
”

When he’s not slinging dubious accusations of corruption, attacking Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, or propagating conspiracy theories, President Trump has frequently been hitting the former vice president on his tax plans, warning that they will prompt an economic depression.
“Remember, BIDEN is going to raise your taxes at a level never seen before. This will not only be very costly for you, it will destroy our economy, which is coming back very rapidly,” Trump tweeted Wednesday.
He later added: “The Radical Biden-Harris Agenda is projected to slash the typical American’s income by $6,500 per year. They will raise TAXES by $4 TRILLION DOLLARS – triggering a mass exodus of jobs out of America and into foreign countries.”
The facts: Biden has proposed raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%; raising the top individual income tax rate from 37% to 39.6%; lifting the income cap on Social Security payroll taxes; and taxing capital gains at regular income rates for those making more than $1 million a year. He insists that he will not raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year. Independent analyses have found that Biden’s tax plans would raise about $2.5 trillion in revenue over 10 years, with the burden of those higher taxes falling almost entirely on businesses and high earners — and with relatively little effect on economic growth. For more details, see here, here, here or here.
On the other hand, former Trump White House economists Kevin Hassett and Casey B. Mulligan released a study last week that said that Biden’s plans would result in about 5 million fewer jobs and about $2.6 trillion less in gross domestic product by 2030. The report estimated that Biden’s agenda would cost the median family about $6,500 in income by 2030, the source for Trump’s claim on the stump. But the methodology of that study has come under criticism for unfairly penalizing Biden for tax cuts set to expire as part of the 2017 Republican tax law. “I’m trying not to be overly partisan, but I think they’ve put their thumb on the scale in that way,” Rich Prisinzano, director of policy analysis for the Penn Wharton Budget Model, tells Bloomberg Businessweek.
A bad time for tax hikes? The bigger question surrounding Biden’s plan at the moment is whether it’s would be wise to raise taxes when the economy has been weakened by the coronavirus pandemic. Asked about that during his ABC town hall last week, Biden said: “Absolutely.” The Biden camp argues that the investments in infrastructure and other areas that the former vice president proposes to fund through tax hikes would pay off with stronger growth — though Biden acknowledged he would still need to get the congressional votes to pass such legislation.
The New York Times’s Jim Tankersley and Thomas Kaplan explained the debate earlier this week:
“Republicans have long asserted that any Democratic proposals to raise taxes would hurt the economy, regardless of whether it was booming or ailing. In recent years, including in the Democratic presidential primaries this year, Democrats and liberal economists have more forcefully argued the opposite: that raising taxes on the rich to fund government spending that bolsters the productivity of the United States economy will accelerate economic growth.”
Stimulus first: Even as Biden defends his tax-hike proposals, The Washington Post’s Jeff Stein reports that the former vice president isn’t likely to pursue those plans as part of any short-term stimulus meant to fuel recovery from the effects of the pandemic. “However, the former vice president would likely aim to include his tax increases if Congress approves his proposed permanent spending plans, such as expansions in child care, health care or education,” Stein writes, citing two sources familiar with the campaign’s thinking. “A Biden campaign aide confirmed that his commitment to paying for spending priorities did not include short-term stimulus measures.”
The bottom line: The economic arguments are one thing, but don’t ignore the political challenges inevitably involved with just about any tax hikes. As Stein suggests: “Biden may still face significant political obstacles in securing passage of his various tax hike proposals even if his party controls both the House and the Senate.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-21--OxyContin Maker Pleads Guilty, Will Pay $8.3 Billion

Purdue Pharma has agreed to plead guilty to federal criminal charges for its role in creating the opioid crisis , the Justice Department announced Wednesday .
The OxyContin maker will pay $ 8.3 billion in fines and penalties , which will be used to fund addiction treatment and abatement programs .
The charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States and violating federal anti-kickback laws , according to the Associated Press .
The company , which declared bankruptcy last year , lacks the cash to pay the fines , and as part of the settlement the company it will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a public company operated to benefit the American public .
All earnings of the firm , which will continue to produce painkillers , will be used to pay fines and combat the addiction crisis .
The Sackler family , who earned billions of dollars operating Purdue , agreed to pay $ 225 million as part of a separate settlement with the Justice Department .
The settlement does not eliminate the possibility that some members of the family could still be charged with additional federal crimes .
A fraction of the total cost : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when its time-release formula for oxycodone , an opium derivative , was approved by the FDA .
Lawsuits from multiple state and local governments against the company suggest that the total cost of the opioid addiction crisis that it helped spark comes to more than $ 2 trillion over the last two decades .

Purdue Pharma has agreed to plead guilty to federal criminal charges for its role in creating the opioid crisis, the Justice Department announced Wednesday. The OxyContin maker will pay $8.3 billion in fines and penalties, which will be used to fund addiction treatment and abatement programs.
The charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States and violating federal anti-kickback laws, according to the Associated Press.
The company, which declared bankruptcy last year, lacks the cash to pay the fines, and as part of the settlement the company it will be dissolved, with its assets rolled into a public company operated to benefit the American public. All earnings of the firm, which will continue to produce painkillers, will be used to pay fines and combat the addiction crisis.
The Sackler family, who earned billions of dollars operating Purdue, agreed to pay $225 million as part of a separate settlement with the Justice Department. The settlement does not eliminate the possibility that some members of the family could still be charged with additional federal crimes.
A fraction of the total cost: Purdue has been marketing OxyContin since 1995, when its time-release formula for oxycodone, an opium derivative, was approved by the FDA. Lawsuits from multiple state and local governments against the company suggest that the total cost of the opioid addiction crisis that it helped spark comes to more than $2 trillion over the last two decades.


thefiscaltimes--2020-10-20--Two New Polls Find Trouble for Trump on the Economy

As the Trump administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) scramble to see if they can reach a roughly $ 2 trillion stimulus deal — while Senate Republicans look to vote on a smaller , $ 500 billion plan — voters say they back a bigger package .
In a new poll from The New York Times and Sienna College , 72 % of likely voters said they support a $ 2 trillion plan that would extend enhanced unemployment insurance , send stimulus checks to most households and provide more aid to state and local governments .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support is for additional relief , and the risk congressional Republicans may be taking if they block further spending , even 56 percent of Republicans said they backed another $ 2 trillion package , ” the Times ’ s Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin write .
The Times poll and one released Tuesday by the Financial Times and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation both find other trouble for President Trump .
Joe Biden holds a nine-point lead over Trump in the Times poll , 50 % -41 % .
The likely voters surveyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s position to the president ’ s on a broad range of issues — including the economy , long a strength for Trump .
The New York Times poll finds that voters are now split , 48 % -47 % , on whether Trump or Biden would do a better job on the economy .
The Financial Times-Peterson poll finds that 46 % of Americans believe the president policies have hurt the economy , greater than the 44 % who say Trump ’ s policies have helped .
That ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoyed an 11-point net positive rating on the question .
( The Fiscal Times is an editorially independent organization funded by the late Peter G. Peterson and his family . )
Less than a third of those surveyed by the FT said they expect the economy to fully recover from the pandemic within a year , the lowest level since the newspaper first asked the question in April .
“ Part of the shift away from Mr. Trump on the economy may stem from voters ’ urgent hunger for new relief spending from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has nominally endorsed but which he has not sought actively to extract from congressional Republicans , ” Burns and Martin write in The New York Times .
A majority of voters also supports Biden ’ s call for a public health insurance option , his $ 2 trillion climate change plan and a national mandate requiring face coverings .
On the coronavirus pandemic , the Times poll finds that a narrow majority of voters ( 51 % ) believe the worst is yet to come while 37 % say the worst is behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handle the pandemic , voters favor Biden by 12 points .
The New York Times poll of 987 likely voters was conducted from October 15 to 18 and has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points .
The FT-Peterson Poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted between October 8 and 11 .
It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points .
Read more at The New York Times , the Financial Times or the Peter G. Peterson Foundation .

As the Trump administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) scramble to see if they can reach a roughly $2 trillion stimulus deal — while Senate Republicans look to vote on a smaller, $500 billion plan — voters say they back a bigger package.
In a new poll from The New York Times and Sienna College, 72% of likely voters said they support a $2 trillion plan that would extend enhanced unemployment insurance, send stimulus checks to most households and provide more aid to state and local governments.
“In a sign of how broad the support is for additional relief, and the risk congressional Republicans may be taking if they block further spending, even 56 percent of Republicans said they backed another $2 trillion package,” the Times’s Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin write.
The Times poll and one released Tuesday by the Financial Times and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation both find other trouble for President Trump.
Joe Biden holds a nine-point lead over Trump in the Times poll, 50%-41%. The likely voters surveyed said they prefer the former vice president’s position to the president’s on a broad range of issues — including the economy, long a strength for Trump.
The New York Times poll finds that voters are now split, 48%-47%, on whether Trump or Biden would do a better job on the economy.
The Financial Times-Peterson poll finds that 46% of Americans believe the president policies have hurt the economy, greater than the 44% who say Trump’s policies have helped. That’s a sharp swing from March, when Trump enjoyed an 11-point net positive rating on the question. (The Fiscal Times is an editorially independent organization funded by the late Peter G. Peterson and his family.)
Less than a third of those surveyed by the FT said they expect the economy to fully recover from the pandemic within a year, the lowest level since the newspaper first asked the question in April.
“Part of the shift away from Mr. Trump on the economy may stem from voters’ urgent hunger for new relief spending from the federal government — which Mr. Trump has nominally endorsed but which he has not sought actively to extract from congressional Republicans,” Burns and Martin write in The New York Times.
A majority of voters also supports Biden’s call for a public health insurance option, his $2 trillion climate change plan and a national mandate requiring face coverings. On the coronavirus pandemic, the Times poll finds that a narrow majority of voters (51%) believe the worst is yet to come while 37% say the worst is behind us. On who they trust to handle the pandemic, voters favor Biden by 12 points.
The New York Times poll of 987 likely voters was conducted from October 15 to 18 and has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points. The FT-Peterson Poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted between October 8 and 11. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Read more at The New York Times, the Financial Times or the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.