thefiscaltimes--2020-05-08--Unemployment Rate Soars to 14.7%, Worst Since Great Depression

The U.S economy set new records last month for job losses and the unemployment rate , the Labor Department announced Friday , as the coronavirus pandemic took an enormous toll on economic activity throughout the country .
Nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million during the month , driving the unemployment rate to 14.7 % .
The job loss numbers reflect the largest monthly employment contraction in U.S. history , dwarfing the monthly totals seen during the 2008-2009 recession and the previous record set just after World War II .
The unemployment rate is now the highest since the Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis : `` The number of workers who swiftly lost work in April is beyond belief , '' said Nick Bunker of Indeed Hiring Lab .
`` With today 's report , the full scope and scale of the current labor market crisis is only now coming into focus . ''
Labor force participation plunges : The labor force participation rate fell to 60.2 % in April — the lowest since January 1973 .
And the employment-to-population ratio dropped to 51.3 % , reflecting the largest one-month decline and the lowest reading in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The leisure and hospitality sectors lost 7.7 million jobs — nearly half of all employment in hotels , bars , restaurants , tourism and travel — and those losses accounted for 37 % of the total for the month .
In other sectors , retail shed 2.1 million jobs , manufacturing lost 1.3 million and white-collar sectors saw 2.1 million job losses .
State and local governments also started cutting back , with nearly 1 million layoffs .
And in what may seem odd during a health crisis , the medical sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were put on hold and Americans avoided the health care system whenever possible .
Big differences by education : The unemployment rate soared to 21.2 % for those without a high school degree , a record high .
College graduates registered an 8.4 % unemployment rate , while 17.3 % of those with a high school degree were out of work .
The true numbers are probably even worse : Economists say that timing and measurement issues almost certainly underestimate the true extent of the damage .
Michael Feroli of J.P. Morgan said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had left the workforce and those who were likely misclassified as “ employed but not at work due to other reasons , ” the unemployment rate would be closer to 23 % .
The Bureau of Labor Statistics agreed on the general point , saying the unemployment rate would have been nearly five points higher had more “ absent from work ” people been included .
More federal aid is probably needed : “ This unemployment rate should be a real kick in the pants -- and maybe even the face , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Washington Post .
“ Congress has to stay the course on aid until more people are back at work.
” Trump says he ’ s not worried — and not to blame : Speaking to “ Fox & Friends ” Friday morning , President Trump was sanguine about the report .
“ It 's fully expected .
There 's no surprise .
Everybody knows this , '' he told the show ’ s hosts .
“ Somebody said , ‘ Oh , look at this.
’ Well , even the Democrats are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I can do is I 'll bring it back.
” A glimmer of hope : The share of people who said they are unemployed on temporary basis soared to a record 80 % in April , more than three times the level in March .
“ Such a large share of temporarily unemployed Americans indicates they may be able to return to their previous employers quickly as the nation emerges from the economic stoppage , ” says Vince Golle of Bloomberg News .
But long-term picture is far from rosy : Economists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , the more likely that temporary job losses will become permanent .
“ This is pretty scary , ” Lindsey Piegza , chief economist at Stifel , told the Post .
“ I ’ m fearful many of these jobs are not going to come back and we are going to have an unemployment rate well into 2021 of near 10 percent.
” Joseph Brusuelas , chief economist at consulting firm RSM , told Politico ’ s Ben White that the U.S. has a tough road ahead , despite what some political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We have to be utterly realistic about this because there is political fantasy out there and then there is economic reality .
It is going to be years before we recover all of these lost jobs and as much as 25 percent of them aren ’ t ever coming back .
”

The U.S economy set new records last month for job losses and the unemployment rate, the Labor Department announced Friday, as the coronavirus pandemic took an enormous toll on economic activity throughout the country.
Nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million during the month, driving the unemployment rate to 14.7%.
The job loss numbers reflect the largest monthly employment contraction in U.S. history, dwarfing the monthly totals seen during the 2008-2009 recession and the previous record set just after World War II. The unemployment rate is now the highest since the Great Depression.
The sheer size of the crisis: "The number of workers who swiftly lost work in April is beyond belief," said Nick Bunker of Indeed Hiring Lab. "With today's report, the full scope and scale of the current labor market crisis is only now coming into focus."
Labor force participation plunges: The labor force participation rate fell to 60.2% in April — the lowest since January 1973. And the employment-to-population ratio dropped to 51.3%, reflecting the largest one-month decline and the lowest reading in U.S. history.
Hospitality sector hit hard: The leisure and hospitality sectors lost 7.7 million jobs — nearly half of all employment in hotels, bars, restaurants, tourism and travel — and those losses accounted for 37% of the total for the month. In other sectors, retail shed 2.1 million jobs, manufacturing lost 1.3 million and white-collar sectors saw 2.1 million job losses. State and local governments also started cutting back, with nearly 1 million layoffs. And in what may seem odd during a health crisis, the medical sector lost 1.4 million jobs as elective procedures were put on hold and Americans avoided the health care system whenever possible.
Big differences by education: The unemployment rate soared to 21.2% for those without a high school degree, a record high. College graduates registered an 8.4% unemployment rate, while 17.3% of those with a high school degree were out of work.
The true numbers are probably even worse: Economists say that timing and measurement issues almost certainly underestimate the true extent of the damage. Michael Feroli of J.P. Morgan said, factoring in all the people who had left the workforce and those who were likely misclassified as “employed but not at work due to other reasons,” the unemployment rate would be closer to 23%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics agreed on the general point, saying the unemployment rate would have been nearly five points higher had more “absent from work” people been included.
More federal aid is probably needed: “This unemployment rate should be a real kick in the pants -- and maybe even the face,” former Federal Reserve economist Claudia Sahm told The Washington Post. “Congress has to stay the course on aid until more people are back at work.”
Trump says he’s not worried — and not to blame: Speaking to “Fox & Friends” Friday morning, President Trump was sanguine about the report. “It's fully expected. There's no surprise. Everybody knows this," he told the show’s hosts. “Somebody said, ‘Oh, look at this.’ Well, even the Democrats aren't blaming me for that. But what I can do is I'll bring it back.”
A glimmer of hope: The share of people who said they are unemployed on temporary basis soared to a record 80% in April, more than three times the level in March. “Such a large share of temporarily unemployed Americans indicates they may be able to return to their previous employers quickly as the nation emerges from the economic stoppage,” says Vince Golle of Bloomberg News.
But long-term picture is far from rosy: Economists say that the longer the crisis goes on, the more likely that temporary job losses will become permanent. “This is pretty scary,” Lindsey Piegza, chief economist at Stifel, told the Post. “I’m fearful many of these jobs are not going to come back and we are going to have an unemployment rate well into 2021 of near 10 percent.”
Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at consulting firm RSM, told Politico’s Ben White that the U.S. has a tough road ahead, despite what some political leaders are saying about a quick recovery. “We have to be utterly realistic about this because there is political fantasy out there and then there is economic reality. It is going to be years before we recover all of these lost jobs and as much as 25 percent of them aren’t ever coming back.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-08--How Can Biden Win Over the Left? One Answer May Lie at the Post Office

Now that Joe Biden is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , spectators are beginning to wonder what policies he will adopt as he attempts to appeal to the progressive wing of the party .
From foreign policy to environmental protection and corruption , Biden will attempt to curry favor with skeptical left-wing voters by creating a unified platform .
Biden ’ s close ties with banking ( he has been derisively called “ The Senator from MBNA , ” referring to his relationship with the former Delaware-based banking giant ) , will make a significant leftward pivot on banking policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alienating long-time ( and deep-pocketed ) supporters , and there ’ s plenty of evidence that he ’ s an ideological moderate with regards to banking .
So how might Biden appeal to the left without angering his moderate supporters ?
One potential solution lies , in all places , at the post office .
Senators Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) and Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) have long advocated for the re-establishment of the Postal Savings System , which operated from 1911 to 1967 and allowed people to make deposits at local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a popular idea among many policy-makers on the left , and even made it into the 2016 Democratic Party platform .
There is certainly a need for banking options for low-income American households .
The FDIC estimates that 8.4 million households have no checking or savings accounts .
Many banks have eliminated free checking , or require minimum balances or direct deposits to avoid paying penalties .
The result is a sad irony that all but the poorest receive federal subsidies ( via deposit insurance ) for their checking and savings accounts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Savings is not all that radical .
A new system would offer some kind of banking ( and maybe loans ) to small-scale depositors , many of whom lack bank accounts or perhaps even access to a bank .
Like the original system , it would probably only successfully pass through Congress with support ( or at least no opposition ) from banking associations .
In other countries , like the Netherlands and Japan , the system has been privatized .
Though we have more than 50 years of history running a Postal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is largely speculative .
Supporters argue that the system will provide a haven for the unbanked or underbanked through one of the most popular federal institutions .
Critics counter that the system will worsen the finances of a struggling government entity .
While the historical record provides ammunition for both proponents ( the system almost always turned a profit ) and opponents ( we had the system and chose to get rid of it ) learning the lessons of history is never as easy as we want it to be .
History may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of way ; making sense of it can be head-spinning .
For several years , my colleagues and I have been piecing together the history of the U.S .
Postal Savings System , which operated nationwide .
We found that the system initially seemed to serve exactly who it was designed for ( small-scale , probably low-income households ) but that changes to the larger financial markets changed the nature of the system ( sometimes dramatically ) .
In the late 1920s , banking instability increased and interest rates decreased .
Suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had the benefit of federal insurance ( before the creation of the FDIC ) and offered a relatively high 2 % interest rate , became a popular destination for depositors .
Billions of dollars flowed into the system during the Great Depression .
When Postal Savings was initially designed , Congress had not anticipated that the system ’ s federal insurance would be so appealing , so this influx of money was certainly unintended .
This lesson led us to look specifically at Building & Loan Associations .
B & Ls may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depositors as Postal Savings .
Also , while most funds deposited into post offices were then re-deposited in nearby banks ( a feature of the system that was included to broaden support for the initial legislation ) , B & Ls were not eligible for those re-deposits .
B & Ls were also particularly hard hit by the Depression , as they experienced increases in mortgage defaults and decreases in share values .
We wondered if some of this impact could be explained by Postal Savings .
Our findings suggest that lawmakers should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ postal banking .
We found that increases in postal savings deposits were strong predictors for decreases in B & L shares .
In fact , about 40 % of the changes in B & L shares are predicted by prior changes in postal savings deposits .
This suggests that households were either taking money out of B & Ls and putting it into the federally insured postal depositories , or avoiding B & Ls altogether .
During the 1930s , B & Ls desperately needed these funds , but instead were experiencing widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loans meant that as more borrowers defaulted on loans , the incentive for remaining borrowers to repay their loans decreased , which caused a crisis in B & Ls that eventually led to a complete restructuring of the entire industry .
Given the magnitude of the effect of postal savings , it is likely that postal savings contributed to the struggles of Building & Loans during the Depression .
So what can these findings tell us about a potential for a successful reintroduction of Postal Savings ?
Naturally , the setting we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the 1930s looked dramatically different from 1911 , when Postal Savings was started .
The 2 % interest rate that made Postal Savings so appealing in 1930 was specifically designed in 1911 to be so low as to not compete with private banks .
But markets change .
Postal Savings didn ’ t , and so the system designed for small-scale , relatively low-income depositors to draw money out from under their mattresses ended up taking much-needed funds out of the housing market at a period when they were desperately needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two things should be kept in mind .
The first is that postal services aren ’ t means-tested .
Anyone can use services offered by the post office , no matter their income .
If Postal Savings is to be designed for low-income depositors , its structure should disincentivize wealthier patrons .
In 2018 , Senator Kirsten Gillibrand ( D-NY ) proposed legislation that would have re-established postal savings and provided short term loans of $ 500 ; the interest rate for these loans would be pegged to the one-month Treasury yield .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ equated to about a 1.6 % interest rate .
Today , it would be 0.08 % .
While such a loan structure would certainly help some low-income families , it would likely be heavily used by financially savvy , higher income people who come by for some free money when they buy their stamps .
The other lesson is that when the Post Office enters the banking market , it can create winners and losers .
In the historical setting , Postal Savings likely drew money out of private banks , especially during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were re-deposited back into some banks , other banks ( and non-bank financial institutions like B & Ls ) lost out .
Policymakers should be careful to avoid these same mistakes .
Steven Sprick Schuster is an assistant professor of economics at Middle Tennessee State University and co-author of The Center for Growth and Opportunity 's paper , `` The US Postal Savings System and the Collapse of Building and Loan Associations During the Great Depression . ''

Now that Joe Biden is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, spectators are beginning to wonder what policies he will adopt as he attempts to appeal to the progressive wing of the party. From foreign policy to environmental protection and corruption, Biden will attempt to curry favor with skeptical left-wing voters by creating a unified platform.
Biden’s close ties with banking (he has been derisively called “The Senator from MBNA,” referring to his relationship with the former Delaware-based banking giant), will make a significant leftward pivot on banking policy a politically difficult one. He risks alienating long-time (and deep-pocketed) supporters, and there’s plenty of evidence that he’s an ideological moderate with regards to banking.
So how might Biden appeal to the left without angering his moderate supporters? One potential solution lies, in all places, at the post office. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have long advocated for the re-establishment of the Postal Savings System, which operated from 1911 to 1967 and allowed people to make deposits at local post offices. Its re-establishment has become a popular idea among many policy-makers on the left, and even made it into the 2016 Democratic Party platform.
There is certainly a need for banking options for low-income American households. The FDIC estimates that 8.4 million households have no checking or savings accounts. Many banks have eliminated free checking, or require minimum balances or direct deposits to avoid paying penalties. The result is a sad irony that all but the poorest receive federal subsidies (via deposit insurance) for their checking and savings accounts.
Despite its association with progressives, Postal Savings is not all that radical. A new system would offer some kind of banking (and maybe loans) to small-scale depositors, many of whom lack bank accounts or perhaps even access to a bank. Like the original system, it would probably only successfully pass through Congress with support (or at least no opposition) from banking associations. In other countries, like the Netherlands and Japan, the system has been privatized.
Though we have more than 50 years of history running a Postal Savings System, analysis on current plans is largely speculative. Supporters argue that the system will provide a haven for the unbanked or underbanked through one of the most popular federal institutions. Critics counter that the system will worsen the finances of a struggling government entity. While the historical record provides ammunition for both proponents (the system almost always turned a profit) and opponents (we had the system and chose to get rid of it) learning the lessons of history is never as easy as we want it to be. History may rhyme, but only in a Jabberwocky kind of way; making sense of it can be head-spinning.
For several years, my colleagues and I have been piecing together the history of the U.S. Postal Savings System, which operated nationwide. We found that the system initially seemed to serve exactly who it was designed for (small-scale, probably low-income households) but that changes to the larger financial markets changed the nature of the system (sometimes dramatically).
In the late 1920s, banking instability increased and interest rates decreased. Suddenly the humble Postal Savings system, which had the benefit of federal insurance (before the creation of the FDIC) and offered a relatively high 2% interest rate, became a popular destination for depositors. Billions of dollars flowed into the system during the Great Depression. When Postal Savings was initially designed, Congress had not anticipated that the system’s federal insurance would be so appealing, so this influx of money was certainly unintended.
This lesson led us to look specifically at Building & Loan Associations. B&Ls may have attracted many of the same, small-scale depositors as Postal Savings. Also, while most funds deposited into post offices were then re-deposited in nearby banks (a feature of the system that was included to broaden support for the initial legislation), B&Ls were not eligible for those re-deposits. B&Ls were also particularly hard hit by the Depression, as they experienced increases in mortgage defaults and decreases in share values. We wondered if some of this impact could be explained by Postal Savings.
Our findings suggest that lawmakers should be wary of any unintended consequences of postal banking. We found that increases in postal savings deposits were strong predictors for decreases in B&L shares. In fact, about 40% of the changes in B&L shares are predicted by prior changes in postal savings deposits. This suggests that households were either taking money out of B&Ls and putting it into the federally insured postal depositories, or avoiding B&Ls altogether.
During the 1930s, B&Ls desperately needed these funds, but instead were experiencing widespread losses. The share accumulation structure of the loans meant that as more borrowers defaulted on loans, the incentive for remaining borrowers to repay their loans decreased, which caused a crisis in B&Ls that eventually led to a complete restructuring of the entire industry. Given the magnitude of the effect of postal savings, it is likely that postal savings contributed to the struggles of Building & Loans during the Depression.
So what can these findings tell us about a potential for a successful reintroduction of Postal Savings? Naturally, the setting we studied looks little like the present day. But the 1930s looked dramatically different from 1911, when Postal Savings was started. The 2% interest rate that made Postal Savings so appealing in 1930 was specifically designed in 1911 to be so low as to not compete with private banks. But markets change. Postal Savings didn’t, and so the system designed for small-scale, relatively low-income depositors to draw money out from under their mattresses ended up taking much-needed funds out of the housing market at a period when they were desperately needed.
In designing a new system, two things should be kept in mind. The first is that postal services aren’t means-tested. Anyone can use services offered by the post office, no matter their income. If Postal Savings is to be designed for low-income depositors, its structure should disincentivize wealthier patrons. In 2018, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) proposed legislation that would have re-established postal savings and provided short term loans of $500; the interest rate for these loans would be pegged to the one-month Treasury yield. When the legislation was proposed, this equated to about a 1.6% interest rate. Today, it would be 0.08%. While such a loan structure would certainly help some low-income families, it would likely be heavily used by financially savvy, higher income people who come by for some free money when they buy their stamps.
The other lesson is that when the Post Office enters the banking market, it can create winners and losers. In the historical setting, Postal Savings likely drew money out of private banks, especially during periods of instability. While those deposits were re-deposited back into some banks, other banks (and non-bank financial institutions like B&Ls) lost out. Policymakers should be careful to avoid these same mistakes.
Steven Sprick Schuster is an assistant professor of economics at Middle Tennessee State University and co-author of The Center for Growth and Opportunity's paper, "The US Postal Savings System and the Collapse of Building and Loan Associations During the Great Depression."


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-07--Pelosi Pushes Back on Trump’s Call for New Tax Cuts

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday laid out the broad outlines of the next round of coronavirus stimulus being written by House Democrats and dismissed President Trump ’ s calls for payroll and capital gains tax cuts , saying those cuts won ’ t help those hurt most by the coronavirus pandemic and that the president shouldn ’ t insist on them now .
“ If you want to compare the need for us to change the capital gains tax , which , once again , once again , ignores the fact that there are people in our country that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equivalent to that , I respectfully disagree .
There are certain things are urgent , ” Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television .
“ Having a discussion of tax policy ?
Save that for another day and do it in a bipartisan way .
But don ’ t draw any lines in the sand .
We ’ re not .
He shouldn ’ t. ” At her weekly press conference , the speaker called for more aid to state and local governments , more virus testing and “ putting money in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the form of direct payments , expanded unemployment insurance and tax credits .
Pelosi said those elements were all in previous coronavirus relief legislation .
“ So this is not plowing any new territory .
It is digging deeper with more money , ” she said in her Bloomberg interview .
Pelosi also called for “ a significant increase ” in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits , commonly known as food stamps , and help for the United States Postal Service .
And she said she supports the use of “ automatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without requiring Congress to act repeatedly .
A ‘ Rooseveltian ’ response : Pelosi said Thursday that the package being prepared by House Democrats “ will be big.
” Though she did not provide specific figures , it reportedly could match or exceed the $ 2.2 trillion cost of the initial CARES Act .
She said concerns about the rapidly rising national debt , which topped $ 25 trillion this week , should not prevent lawmakers from providing food assistance to people in need — and that it was far better to add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 .
`` Yes , I 'm concerned about the national debt , '' she said , `` but I think it would be penny foolish to say , ' I 'm sorry , we ca n't do SNAP to give you food because there 's a national debt . '
'' Pelosi also reiterated that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had encouraged lawmakers to “ think big ” because interest rates are low .
Along those lines , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told MSNBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rooseveltian ” in its scope and size .
He compared calls by GOP leaders including Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy for lawmakers to pause before passing any additional legislation to President Herbert Hoover ’ s response to the 1929 stock market crash and the start of the Great Depression .
“ The people like McConnell and McCarthy and even Trump who say , ‘ Let ’ s wait and do nothing , ’ well , they remind me of the old Herbert Hoovers .
We had the Great Depression — Hoover said let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It got worse and worse , ” Schumer said .
What ’ s next : Pelosi told reporters that the House would probably return next week and could vote on its latest coronavirus legislation then .
It ’ s not clear yet whether Democrats will look to pass their legislation without Republican support , unlike previous rounds of coronavirus relief .
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Thursday called for hearings to evaluate previous coronavirus legislation before lawmakers take up any new bill , and some moderate Democrats reportedly have also raised concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further negotiations .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday laid out the broad outlines of the next round of coronavirus stimulus being written by House Democrats and dismissed President Trump’s calls for payroll and capital gains tax cuts, saying those cuts won’t help those hurt most by the coronavirus pandemic and that the president shouldn’t insist on them now.
“If you want to compare the need for us to change the capital gains tax, which, once again, once again, ignores the fact that there are people in our country that are hungry and that there is some equivalent to that, I respectfully disagree. There are certain things are urgent,” Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “Having a discussion of tax policy? Save that for another day and do it in a bipartisan way. But don’t draw any lines in the sand. We’re not. He shouldn’t.”
At her weekly press conference, the speaker called for more aid to state and local governments, more virus testing and “putting money in people’s pockets,” potentially in the form of direct payments, expanded unemployment insurance and tax credits.
Pelosi said those elements were all in previous coronavirus relief legislation. “So this is not plowing any new territory. It is digging deeper with more money,” she said in her Bloomberg interview.
Pelosi also called for “a significant increase” in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, commonly known as food stamps, and help for the United States Postal Service. And she said she supports the use of “automatic stabilizers” that could extend unemployment benefits without requiring Congress to act repeatedly.
A ‘Rooseveltian’ response: Pelosi said Thursday that the package being prepared by House Democrats “will be big.” Though she did not provide specific figures, it reportedly could match or exceed the $2.2 trillion cost of the initial CARES Act. She said concerns about the rapidly rising national debt, which topped $25 trillion this week, should not prevent lawmakers from providing food assistance to people in need — and that it was far better to add to the debt for that than for the tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017. "Yes, I'm concerned about the national debt," she said, "but I think it would be penny foolish to say, 'I'm sorry, we can't do SNAP to give you food because there's a national debt.'"
Pelosi also reiterated that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had encouraged lawmakers to “think big” because interest rates are low.
Along those lines, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told MSNBC that the coming package would be “Rooseveltian” in its scope and size. He compared calls by GOP leaders including Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy for lawmakers to pause before passing any additional legislation to President Herbert Hoover’s response to the 1929 stock market crash and the start of the Great Depression.
“The people like McConnell and McCarthy and even Trump who say, ‘Let’s wait and do nothing,’ well, they remind me of the old Herbert Hoovers. We had the Great Depression — Hoover said let’s just wait it out. It got worse and worse,” Schumer said.
What’s next: Pelosi told reporters that the House would probably return next week and could vote on its latest coronavirus legislation then. It’s not clear yet whether Democrats will look to pass their legislation without Republican support, unlike previous rounds of coronavirus relief.
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Thursday called for hearings to evaluate previous coronavirus legislation before lawmakers take up any new bill, and some moderate Democrats reportedly have also raised concerns about moving ahead without bipartisan consensus or further negotiations.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-11--What’s in Pelosi's Next Coronavirus Rescue Plan?

Even as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans take a wait-and-see approach to the next phase of coronavirus relief , House Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi are racing this week to finalize their own proposals for a multitrillion-dollar rescue package .
“ We all agree that we must put more money in the pockets of the American people .
This is not only necessary for their survival but also is a stimulus to the economy .
Direct payments , unemployment insurance , rental and mortgage help and student loan assistance are essential to relieve the fear that many families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Mother ’ s Day letter to colleagues , adding , “ Not acting is the most expensive course.
” GOP in ‘ no rush ’ : President Trump said Friday he ’ s “ in no rush ” to pass another bill .
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said that , while informal talks are happening , formal negotiations are paused and likely will be until early next month .
And Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that there ’ s no urgent need for additional legislation .
`` We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already .
I 'm in constant communication with the White House and if we decide to go forward we 'll go forward together , '' McConnell told reporters , according to The Hill .
`` I don ’ t think we have yet felt the urgency of acting immediately .
That time could develop , but I don ’ t think it has yet . ''
McConnell reportedly declined to specify a timeline for the any additional coronavirus package .
What ’ s in the Democratic package : The Democratic package , dubbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unveiled yet , but a vote could happen as soon as Friday or slip into next week .
If or when the bill passes , it likely won ’ t mean all that much : “ Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law -- it ’ s a Democratic wish list filled up with all the party ’ s favored policies , ” Politico reports .
But it will serve as a political messaging tool — one that House Democrats will use both to show that they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to set out their priorities for future negotiations .
Here ’ s a look at eight key provisions expected in the bill , according to The Hill : • More aid for state and local governments : Democrats are reportedly looking to provide three separate pots of money for states , counties and municipalities at a total cost approaching $ 1 trillion .
• More direct payments : Democrats are reportedly coming together behind a plan to give most Americans $ 2,000 a month for as long as the pandemic lasts .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats will call for further expansion of unemployment benefits as well as additional aid for small businesses , either under the Paycheck Protection Program , which provides grants and loans to keep small businesses afloat and employees on the payroll , or a revamped alternative .
Democrats are “ eyeing a strategy for replacing the PPP with a program that provides federal grants directly to employers , allowing workers to remain employed — and receiving health benefits — without navigating approval through the middleman banks , ” The Hill says .
• Rent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Washington and Maxine Waters of California have proposed a $ 100 billion program to help people pay their rent and utilities .
• Expanding broadband service to rural and low-income areas : This may be the main piece left from scrapped plans to propose a huge infrastructure spending package .
• Money for coronavirus testing , treatment and contact tracing : “ In this critical moment for our country , we must demonstrate a clear strategy of testing , tracing , and treatment , ” Pelosi said in her letter .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are reportedly aiming for at least $ 25 billion in aid .
• Food programs : Democrats has wanted a 15 % increase in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program , commonly called food stamps , as part of the first CARES Act .
That didn ’ t happen , but the party will look to ramp up nutritional assistance funding — for SNAP and other programs —in the next bill .

Even as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans take a wait-and-see approach to the next phase of coronavirus relief, House Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi are racing this week to finalize their own proposals for a multitrillion-dollar rescue package.
“We all agree that we must put more money in the pockets of the American people. This is not only necessary for their survival but also is a stimulus to the economy. Direct payments, unemployment insurance, rental and mortgage help and student loan assistance are essential to relieve the fear that many families are facing,” Pelosi wrote in a Mother’s Day letter to colleagues, adding, “Not acting is the most expensive course.”
GOP in ‘no rush’: President Trump said Friday he’s “in no rush” to pass another bill. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said that, while informal talks are happening, formal negotiations are paused and likely will be until early next month. And Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that there’s no urgent need for additional legislation.
"We're basically assessing what we've done already. I'm in constant communication with the White House and if we decide to go forward we'll go forward together," McConnell told reporters, according to The Hill. "I don’t think we have yet felt the urgency of acting immediately. That time could develop, but I don’t think it has yet."
McConnell reportedly declined to specify a timeline for the any additional coronavirus package.
What’s in the Democratic package: The Democratic package, dubbed CARES 2, hasn’t been unveiled yet, but a vote could happen as soon as Friday or slip into next week. If or when the bill passes, it likely won’t mean all that much: “Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law -- it’s a Democratic wish list filled up with all the party’s favored policies,” Politico reports. But it will serve as a political messaging tool — one that House Democrats will use both to show that they’re still working to address the pandemic and to set out their priorities for future negotiations.
Here’s a look at eight key provisions expected in the bill, according to The Hill:


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-08--Democratic Senators Propose $2,000 Monthly Payments Throughout Pandemic

Democratic Sens .
Kamala Harris of California , Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont unveiled a bill Friday to give most Americans $ 2,000 a month for the duration of the coronavirus crisis .
How it would work : The legislation , called the Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act , would provide direct payments of up to $ 2,000 a month to individuals who make less than $ 120,000 .
The payments would start to phase out above $ 100,000 .
Married couples filing taxes jointly would get $ 4,000 , and parents would get $ 2,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The plan would be retroactive to March and continue for three months after the Health and Human Services Department has declared that the public health emergency had ended .
The payments would go to all eligible U.S. residents regardless of whether they filed a tax return or have a Social Security number .
The bill would also forbid debt collectors from seizing the relief payments .
Why the senators says it ’ s needed : The CARES Act passed by Congress in March provided for one-time Economic Impact Payments of up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for couples , plus $ 500 for each qualifying child , with full payments limited to those earning up to $ 75,000 ( $ 150,000 for couples ) .
The trio of senators behind the new bill say those payments are not nearly enough to get households through the crisis .
“ Bills will continue to come in every single month during the pandemic and so should help from government , ” Harris said in a statement .
Markey added : “ Providing recurring monthly payments is the most direct and efficient mechanism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable in this crisis , particularly low-income families , immigrant communities , and our gig and service workers.
” The political lens : “ This is one of several COVID-19 related proposals Harris has introduced while she 's been rumored to be a potential vice presidential pick for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , ” CBS News ’ s Tim Perry notes .
Republicans unlikely to back more relief payments : Congress ’ s Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the one-time direct payments authorized by the CARES Act would cost $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost far more , making it unlikely to find much support among Senate Republicans , many of whom have expressed wariness about additional coronavirus spending .
Some Republicans objected to the first round of direct payments and several have indicated that they strongly oppose the idea of additional stimulus checks .
“ Well , people in hell want ice water too , ” Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said when asked about another round of checks , according to The Hill .
“ I mean , everybody has an idea and a bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s like a Labor Day mattress sale around here .
”

Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont unveiled a bill Friday to give most Americans $2,000 a month for the duration of the coronavirus crisis.
How it would work: The legislation, called the Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act, would provide direct payments of up to $2,000 a month to individuals who make less than $120,000. The payments would start to phase out above $100,000. Married couples filing taxes jointly would get $4,000, and parents would get $2,000 per child for up to three children. The plan would be retroactive to March and continue for three months after the Health and Human Services Department has declared that the public health emergency had ended.
The payments would go to all eligible U.S. residents regardless of whether they filed a tax return or have a Social Security number. The bill would also forbid debt collectors from seizing the relief payments.
Why the senators says it’s needed: The CARES Act passed by Congress in March provided for one-time Economic Impact Payments of up to $1,200 for individuals and $2,400 for couples, plus $500 for each qualifying child, with full payments limited to those earning up to $75,000 ($150,000 for couples). The trio of senators behind the new bill say those payments are not nearly enough to get households through the crisis.
“Bills will continue to come in every single month during the pandemic and so should help from government,” Harris said in a statement. Markey added: “Providing recurring monthly payments is the most direct and efficient mechanism for delivering economic relief to those most vulnerable in this crisis, particularly low-income families, immigrant communities, and our gig and service workers.”
The political lens: “This is one of several COVID-19 related proposals Harris has introduced while she's been rumored to be a potential vice presidential pick for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden,” CBS News’s Tim Perry notes.
Republicans unlikely to back more relief payments: Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the one-time direct payments authorized by the CARES Act would cost $293 billion. This proposal would obviously cost far more, making it unlikely to find much support among Senate Republicans, many of whom have expressed wariness about additional coronavirus spending.
Some Republicans objected to the first round of direct payments and several have indicated that they strongly oppose the idea of additional stimulus checks. “Well, people in hell want ice water too,” Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said when asked about another round of checks, according to The Hill. “I mean, everybody has an idea and a bill, usually to spend more money. It’s like a Labor Day mattress sale around here.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-13--Pelosi Defends $3 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Bill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday defended the massive $ 3 trillion coronavirus relief package Democrats released Tuesday , telling @ @ @ @ @ pandemic “ is the biggest disaster that our country has ever faced ” and that @ @ @ @ @ worth ” the unprecedented cost of the new bill .
Pelosi acknowledged that the plan @ @ @ @ @ talks with the Trump administration and Senate Republicans , who have labeled the proposal as @ @ @ @ @ House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a tweet Wednesday that the president “ has @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus aid package must prioritize Americans ’ health and the nation ’ s economic prosperity @ @ @ @ @ again using this crisis to play politics and push their partisan agenda.
” McEnany also @ @ @ @ @ “ an unserious proposal written to appease her base ” and charged that the legislation @ @ @ @ @ unrelated to the coronavirus .
”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday defended the massive $3 trillion coronavirus relief package Democrats released Tuesday, telling the Associated Press that the pandemic “is the biggest disaster that our country has ever faced” and that “the American people are worth” the unprecedented cost of the new bill.
Pelosi acknowledged that the plan is a starting point for talks with the Trump administration and Senate Republicans, who have labeled the proposal as dead on arrival.
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a tweet Wednesday that the president “has been clear that any future coronavirus aid package must prioritize Americans’ health and the nation’s economic prosperity. House Democrats are once again using this crisis to play politics and push their partisan agenda.”
McEnany also called Pelosi’s bill “an unserious proposal written to appease her base” and charged that the legislation “is overflowing with spending unrelated to the coronavirus.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-11--Top Trump Advisers Want to Limit Debt From Stimulus. One Problem: Trump

Wary of the cost of surging federal spending to combat the coronavirus crisis , senior Trump administration officials are looking at ways to reduce the additional debt created by any future stimulus , The Washington Post reports , adding that President Trump isn ’ t likely to go along : “ The concerns about the deficit are coming from traditional conservatives at the White House , including new chief of staff Mark Meadows and acting budget director Russ Vought .
But officials say they are likely to face much more skepticism from President Trump himself .
Trump has shown little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deficit and has so far stood firm on his campaign pledge not to alter Social Security .
… Meadows , who founded the conservative House ‘ Freedom Caucus , ’ has warned against an emergency relief package for the states , although he has told others in the White House Trump is unlikely to support deficit-limiting measures being considered and that the president is most focused on improving the economy.
” The Post says that some White House officials have explored options such as automatic spending cuts once the economy recovers or letting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become eligible .
Other ideas reportedly being explored by White House officials include two plans that would allow Americans to receive payments now in exchange for delayed or reduced Social Security benefits .
A White House spokesperson told the Post that Trump would not support any proposal that cuts benefits .
Why it matters : These ideas aren ’ t likely to go anywhere , officials tell the Post , but the discussions themselves are an indication of how troubled some administration officials are with the massive coronavirus spending .
Jason Pye , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a conservative advocacy group , told the Post : “ A lot of people in the administration are concerned Republicans have completely surrendered the argument on spending , and they want to address it .
And it ’ s an entirely valid concern.
” At the same time , the discussions may be a tacit acknowledgment that additional coronavirus relief is likely necessary , as many economists insist , even as Trump as top Republicans say they ’ re in no rush to pass the next stimulus package .

Wary of the cost of surging federal spending to combat the coronavirus crisis, senior Trump administration officials are looking at ways to reduce the additional debt created by any future stimulus, The Washington Post reports, adding that President Trump isn’t likely to go along:
“The concerns about the deficit are coming from traditional conservatives at the White House, including new chief of staff Mark Meadows and acting budget director Russ Vought. But officials say they are likely to face much more skepticism from President Trump himself. Trump has shown little interest since becoming president in shrinking the deficit and has so far stood firm on his campaign pledge not to alter Social Security. … Meadows, who founded the conservative House ‘Freedom Caucus,’ has warned against an emergency relief package for the states, although he has told others in the White House Trump is unlikely to support deficit-limiting measures being considered and that the president is most focused on improving the economy.”
The Post says that some White House officials have explored options such as automatic spending cuts once the economy recovers or letting workers receive Social Security benefits before they become eligible. Other ideas reportedly being explored by White House officials include two plans that would allow Americans to receive payments now in exchange for delayed or reduced Social Security benefits.
A White House spokesperson told the Post that Trump would not support any proposal that cuts benefits.
Why it matters: These ideas aren’t likely to go anywhere, officials tell the Post, but the discussions themselves are an indication of how troubled some administration officials are with the massive coronavirus spending. Jason Pye, vice president of legislative affairs at FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group, told the Post: “A lot of people in the administration are concerned Republicans have completely surrendered the argument on spending, and they want to address it. And it’s an entirely valid concern.”
At the same time, the discussions may be a tacit acknowledgment that additional coronavirus relief is likely necessary, as many economists insist, even as Trump as top Republicans say they’re in no rush to pass the next stimulus package.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-13--Fed Chief: Congress Can Do More, Worry About Debt Later

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell warned Wednesday that the U.S. economy could suffer prolonged damage if Congress doesn ’ t provide additional aid to address the coronavirus pandemic and its toll on businesses and households .
“ Additional fiscal support could be costly , but worth it if it helps avoid long-term economic damage and leaves us with a stronger recovery , ” Powell said in a videoconference hosted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics .
“ This tradeoff is one for our elected representatives , who wield powers of taxation and spending.
” Powell cautioned that the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has felt in modern times ” and that the economic outlook remains risky and “ highly uncertain.
” He said that the Fed will release a survey this week showing that , among people who were working in February , nearly 40 % of those in households making less than $ 40,000 a year had lost a job in March .
The Fed has acted aggressively to support the economy and the financial system , and Powell again pledged that it would continue to do so .
He added that the fiscal response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth of support for businesses , households , health-care providers and state and local governments — has been “ the fastest and largest response for any postwar downturn.
” But he warned that the recovery could be slow — and that the scars could take much longer to fade without additional action .
“ The record shows that deeper and longer recessions can leave behind lasting damage to the productive capacity of the economy , ” he said .
“ Avoidable household and business insolvencies can weigh on growth for years to come.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress is divided along stark partisan lines over what additional steps to take in response to the crisis , and how quickly they may be needed .
House Democrats have proposed a $ 3 trillion package of additional relief and plan to vote on it Friday , but formal bipartisan talks are on hold as President Trump and many Republicans say they prefer to wait and see how the $ 2 trillion CARES Act passed in March is working before considering any new legislation .
Some Republicans have also expressed concerns over additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a deficit that is expected to reach nearly $ 4 trillion this year , about four times higher than was projected just a few months ago .
Powell said Wednesday those debt concerns can — and must — be addressed , but not until the pandemic has passed .
“ I do think the time to do that is during good times , when the economy is strong and unemployment is low , ” he said .
“ Now , when we are facing the biggest shock that the economy has had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , not the time to prioritize considerations like that .
I do think that we can come back to them fairly quickly , which is to say a few years down the road when the economy is well and truly recovered or at least mostly recovering.
” A no on negative rates : Powell again dismissed calls for the Fed to embrace negative interest rates , an extraordinary policy move that some investors have anticipated — and which Trump again advocated on Tuesday .
“ The committee ’ s view on negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Powell said .
“ This is not something that we ’ re looking at.
” Why it matters : Fed chairs are usually circumspect in offering Congress any public guidance on fiscal policy , which falls outside their monetary policy purview .
Powell may have technically steered clear of crossing that line , but he left little doubt where he comes down on the question of more stimulus .

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell warned Wednesday that the U.S. economy could suffer prolonged damage if Congress doesn’t provide additional aid to address the coronavirus pandemic and its toll on businesses and households.
“Additional fiscal support could be costly, but worth it if it helps avoid long-term economic damage and leaves us with a stronger recovery,” Powell said in a videoconference hosted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “This tradeoff is one for our elected representatives, who wield powers of taxation and spending.”
Powell cautioned that the pandemic “is the biggest shock our economy has felt in modern times” and that the economic outlook remains risky and “highly uncertain.” He said that the Fed will release a survey this week showing that, among people who were working in February, nearly 40% of those in households making less than $40,000 a year had lost a job in March.
The Fed has acted aggressively to support the economy and the financial system, and Powell again pledged that it would continue to do so. He added that the fiscal response so far — nearly $3 trillion worth of support for businesses, households, health-care providers and state and local governments — has been “the fastest and largest response for any postwar downturn.”
But he warned that the recovery could be slow — and that the scars could take much longer to fade without additional action. “The record shows that deeper and longer recessions can leave behind lasting damage to the productive capacity of the economy,” he said. “Avoidable household and business insolvencies can weigh on growth for years to come.”
Worry about the debt later: Congress is divided along stark partisan lines over what additional steps to take in response to the crisis, and how quickly they may be needed. House Democrats have proposed a $3 trillion package of additional relief and plan to vote on it Friday, but formal bipartisan talks are on hold as President Trump and many Republicans say they prefer to wait and see how the $2 trillion CARES Act passed in March is working before considering any new legislation. Some Republicans have also expressed concerns over additional spending given a rapidly rising national debt and a deficit that is expected to reach nearly $4 trillion this year, about four times higher than was projected just a few months ago.
Powell said Wednesday those debt concerns can — and must — be addressed, but not until the pandemic has passed. “I do think the time to do that is during good times, when the economy is strong and unemployment is low,” he said. “Now, when we are facing the biggest shock that the economy has had in modern times, is, for me, not the time to prioritize considerations like that. I do think that we can come back to them fairly quickly, which is to say a few years down the road when the economy is well and truly recovered or at least mostly recovering.”
A no on negative rates: Powell again dismissed calls for the Fed to embrace negative interest rates, an extraordinary policy move that some investors have anticipated — and which Trump again advocated on Tuesday. “The committee’s view on negative rates really has not changed,” Powell said. “This is not something that we’re looking at.”
Why it matters: Fed chairs are usually circumspect in offering Congress any public guidance on fiscal policy, which falls outside their monetary policy purview. Powell may have technically steered clear of crossing that line, but he left little doubt where he comes down on the question of more stimulus.
Watch Powell’s comments here.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-12--April Deficit Soared to Record $737.9 Billion Thanks to Covid Relief

The U.S. government ’ s budget deficit for April rose to a record $ 737.9 billion , the Treasury Department said Tuesday , as spending surged and tax receipts plunged due to the coronavirus pandemic and economic shutdown .
As we noted here last week , the federal budget typically runs a surplus in April as tax payments come in mid-month .
Last April , the government recorded a surplus of $ 160.3 billion .
But with the tax filing deadline pushed to July 15 this year — and with the devastation in the labor market resulting in tax withholdings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax receipts fell nearly 55 % , to $ 241.9 billion .
Withheld individual income taxes fell by more than 30 % compared with April 2019 , from $ 113.9 billion to $ 79.6 billion .
Spending , meanwhile , jumped by more than 250 % to $ 979.7 billion , driven by coronavirus relief efforts , including $ 217 billion in Economic Impact Payments to individuals and families .
For the first seven months of fiscal year 2020 , the budget deficit was nearly $ 1.5 trillion , up from $ 530.9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the deficit for the full year will total $ 3.7 trillion , or about 18 % of gross domestic product , with federal debt held by the public rising to 101 % of GDP by the end of September .

The U.S. government’s budget deficit for April rose to a record $737.9 billion, the Treasury Department said Tuesday, as spending surged and tax receipts plunged due to the coronavirus pandemic and economic shutdown.
As we noted here last week, the federal budget typically runs a surplus in April as tax payments come in mid-month. Last April, the government recorded a surplus of $160.3 billion. But with the tax filing deadline pushed to July 15 this year — and with the devastation in the labor market resulting in tax withholdings from employee paychecks also falling — total tax receipts fell nearly 55%, to $241.9 billion. Withheld individual income taxes fell by more than 30% compared with April 2019, from $113.9 billion to $79.6 billion.
Spending, meanwhile, jumped by more than 250% to $979.7 billion, driven by coronavirus relief efforts, including $217 billion in Economic Impact Payments to individuals and families.
For the first seven months of fiscal year 2020, the budget deficit was nearly $1.5 trillion, up from $530.9 billion for the same period last year. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the deficit for the full year will total $3.7 trillion, or about 18% of gross domestic product, with federal debt held by the public rising to 101% of GDP by the end of September.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-12--Chart of the Day: Debt Soars, Treasury Yields Do Not

“ Simple laws of supply and demand suggest that when there ’ s an abundance of something , the price @ @ @ @ @ ” says Jared Dillian at Bloomberg , before noting an apparent exception to the rule @ @ @ @ @ seems to have been the exception , with yields – which move inversely to bond @ @ @ @ @ to next to nothing despite the amount of U.S. marketable government debt outstanding having risen @ @ @ @ @ less than $ 5 trillion before the financial crisis.
” Dillian speculated Tuesday about whether @ @ @ @ @ supply of Treasuries in the coming months will overwhelm demand , forcing interest rates higher @ @ @ @ @ ” event that would have enormous implications for the cost of servicing the U.S. national @ @ @ @ @ though , as the chart below indicates , there are few signs of that happening @ @ @ @ @ near record lows .

“Simple laws of supply and demand suggest that when there’s an abundance of something, the price of that thing falls,” says Jared Dillian at Bloomberg, before noting an apparent exception to the rule: “The bond market seems to have been the exception, with yields – which move inversely to bond prices - having steadily declined to next to nothing despite the amount of U.S. marketable government debt outstanding having risen to $18.5 trillion from less than $5 trillion before the financial crisis.”
Dillian speculated Tuesday about whether the enormous increase in the supply of Treasuries in the coming months will overwhelm demand, forcing interest rates higher – a “black swan” event that would have enormous implications for the cost of servicing the U.S. national debt. So far, though, as the chart below indicates, there are few signs of that happening, with interest rates remaining near record lows.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-16--Millions of Americans Are Still Waiting to Get Their Unemployment Benefits

Two months after the coronavirus pandemic first led to vast parts of the U.S. economy being shut down and an unprecedented loss of jobs , states are still struggling to handle the surge of new unemployment claims , leaving millions of Americans waiting on tens of billions of dollars in benefits .
More than 36 million Americans have filed new unemployment claims over the last eight weeks , but Bloomberg News reports that shortcomings in the unemployment-insurance system are leaving millions facing a dire cash crunch , contributing to frustration and anger over the lockdowns that public health experts say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus : “ Bloomberg News contacted all 50 states this week and less than half provided figures on how many people had been paid the benefits they were owed .
But in those states alone at least 5 million initial claims filed were yet to be paid .
The gap between the initial claims reported March 15 to May 2 and continuing claims is now more than 10 million people .
… “ In April , the Treasury , which funds the payments made by states , paid out an unprecedented $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its own data .
Economists at the Brookings Institution , however , calculated that , based on the number of claims filed in April , the bill owed that month alone was at least $ 80 billion and mounting coming into May .
“ The Treasury and states also had to make up for a lag in payments in March .
A separate analysis by economists at the Century Foundation , a nonpartisan think-tank , found that just 14.2 % of the 12 million new workers who filed for unemployment in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senior fellow at the Century Foundation , estimates that just 60 % of the 36.5 million people who have filed new claims over the last two months have gotten their benefits .
“ We have to be honest , ” Stettner tells Bloomberg .
“ Even the strongest advocates of this program have to understand it has not been successful .
It hasn ’ t been able to deliver what it needs to despite the heroic efforts of a lot of individual workers and state agencies .
”

Two months after the coronavirus pandemic first led to vast parts of the U.S. economy being shut down and an unprecedented loss of jobs, states are still struggling to handle the surge of new unemployment claims, leaving millions of Americans waiting on tens of billions of dollars in benefits.
More than 36 million Americans have filed new unemployment claims over the last eight weeks, but Bloomberg News reports that shortcomings in the unemployment-insurance system are leaving millions facing a dire cash crunch, contributing to frustration and anger over the lockdowns that public health experts say are needed to curb the spread of the virus:
“Bloomberg News contacted all 50 states this week and less than half provided figures on how many people had been paid the benefits they were owed. But in those states alone at least 5 million initial claims filed were yet to be paid. The gap between the initial claims reported March 15 to May 2 and continuing claims is now more than 10 million people. …
“In April, the Treasury, which funds the payments made by states, paid out an unprecedented $48 billion in unemployment insurance, according to its own data. Economists at the Brookings Institution, however, calculated that, based on the number of claims filed in April, the bill owed that month alone was at least $80 billion and mounting coming into May.
“The Treasury and states also had to make up for a lag in payments in March. A separate analysis by economists at the Century Foundation, a nonpartisan think-tank, found that just 14.2% of the 12 million new workers who filed for unemployment in the month received benefits.”
Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, estimates that just 60% of the 36.5 million people who have filed new claims over the last two months have gotten their benefits.
“We have to be honest,” Stettner tells Bloomberg. “Even the strongest advocates of this program have to understand it has not been successful. It hasn’t been able to deliver what it needs to despite the heroic efforts of a lot of individual workers and state agencies.”
Read the full story at Bloomberg.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-16--White House Floats Another Corporate Tax Cut

The White House of Friday floated the idea of a massive corporate tax cut for U.S. companies that bring their operations back from other countries .
“ Why not provide a 50 % discount for the corporate tax rate if you ’ re moving from outside the U.S. to the U.S. ?
” Kudlow told reporters .
“ So , the rate is 21 % .
Why not try for a couple of years or longer , a 10.5 % rate , which would make us extremely competitive and hospitable to new investments here ?
” White House officials have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet circulated a formal proposal , The Washington Post reports .
Kudlow reportedly also said that officials could explore suspending capital gains taxes on assets bought between now and the end of the year .
The 2017 Republican tax law cut the corporate income tax rate from 35 % to 21 % , which led to a steep decline in corporate tax receipts .
House Democrats aren ’ t likely to go along with the idea of further cuts .
Lawmakers have also largely dismissed President Trump ’ s repeated calls for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have questioned how effective tax cuts would be in addressing the pandemic .
Kudlow ’ s suggestion is `` like trying to graft supply-side Reaganism onto conservative populism , ” Samuel Hammond , a policy expert at the center-right Niskanen Center think tank , told the Post .
“ A lower corporate tax rate probably won ’ t suffice to build an entirely new factory within U.S. borders .
”

The White House of Friday floated the idea of a massive corporate tax cut for U.S. companies that bring their operations back from other countries.
“Why not provide a 50% discount for the corporate tax rate if you’re moving from outside the U.S. to the U.S.?” Larry Kudlow, director of President Trump’s National Economic Council, told reporters. “So, the rate is 21%. Why not try for a couple of years or longer, a 10.5% rate, which would make us extremely competitive and hospitable to new investments here?”
White House officials have begun studying the idea, but have not yet circulated a formal proposal, The Washington Post reports.
Kudlow reportedly also said that officials could explore suspending capital gains taxes on assets bought between now and the end of the year.
The 2017 Republican tax law cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, which led to a steep decline in corporate tax receipts. House Democrats aren’t likely to go along with the idea of further cuts. Lawmakers have also largely dismissed President Trump’s repeated calls for a payroll tax holiday, and economists have questioned how effective tax cuts would be in addressing the pandemic.
Kudlow’s suggestion is "like trying to graft supply-side Reaganism onto conservative populism,” Samuel Hammond, a policy expert at the center-right Niskanen Center think tank, told the Post. “A lower corporate tax rate probably won’t suffice to build an entirely new factory within U.S. borders.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-15--Trump ‘Open’ to Sending More Money to States: Report

President Trump complained last week that providing additional federal funding to help states recover from the coronavirus crisis would be unfair to Republicans “ because all the states that need help — they ’ re run by Democrats in every case.
” At the same time , Trump said that “ reimbursing for the plague ” would be different than bailing out states “ that have been mismanaged over a long period of time ” — essentially leaving the door open to possibility of providing some additional relief , albeit perhaps with some additional conditions as well .
Now The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe — and have privately signaled — that they ’ d be willing to provide tens of billions of dollars to states in order to secure wins on some of their priorities , like tax breaks and liability protections for businesses , in negotiations with Democrats .
The president is reportedly more open to the idea of state aid than to another round of direct payments to individuals .
Trump really wants more tax cuts : “ The White House is telling all of us they want to get a payroll tax through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some capital gains breaks and incentives for businesses to bring their supply chains back to this country , ” one unnamed source — a “ veteran Republican close to Trump ” — told the Post .
“ They say if they can get some of that for money for states that ’ s relatively controlled , they ’ ll look hard at that kind of deal.
” A deal still won ’ t be easy : The tens of billions of dollars cited by the Post is still far short of the $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has called for , which is the amount provided states in the $ 3 trillion package introduced by House Democrats this week .
And lawmakers , including many Republicans , will likely resist the White House ’ s tax cut proposals , which many say aren ’ t targeted to those most affected by the pandemic and economic shutdown .
Another potential obstacle : While White House officials have reportedly assured conservative leaders that any new money will be directed only toward addressing pandemic-related issues , that ’ s easier said than done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jeff Stein and Seung Min Kim write : “ budget experts say it will be difficult , if not impossible , to prevent funding from being redirected by state leaders , or used for unrelated programs.
” More aid to states is likely , but how much ?
Trump will face increasing pressure to provide more money to help states plug budget holes ripped open by the pandemic , and to give states more flexibility in how they use the funding already provided .
Some of that pressure will come from Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Concerns about perilous state finances and potentially severe cuts to services ahead of the November election will only add to the pressure .
“ With those political considerations at the mind , some top Republicans have privately shifted from opposing new cash for states altogether to limiting the package ’ s size and scope , ” the Post says .
“ One idea circulating among lawmakers has included tying the amount of aid allocated to each state to its revenue losses since the pandemic began , said two outside advisers to the White @ @ @

President Trump complained last week that providing additional federal funding to help states recover from the coronavirus crisis would be unfair to Republicans “because all the states that need help — they’re run by Democrats in every case.”
At the same time, Trump said that “reimbursing for the plague” would be different than bailing out states “that have been mismanaged over a long period of time” — essentially leaving the door open to possibility of providing some additional relief, albeit perhaps with some additional conditions as well.
Now The Washington Post reports that White House officials believe — and have privately signaled — that they’d be willing to provide tens of billions of dollars to states in order to secure wins on some of their priorities, like tax breaks and liability protections for businesses, in negotiations with Democrats. The president is reportedly more open to the idea of state aid than to another round of direct payments to individuals.
Trump really wants more tax cuts: “The White House is telling all of us they want to get a payroll tax through the end of the year and provide some capital gains breaks and incentives for businesses to bring their supply chains back to this country,” one unnamed source — a “veteran Republican close to Trump” — told the Post. “They say if they can get some of that for money for states that’s relatively controlled, they’ll look hard at that kind of deal.”
A deal still won’t be easy: The tens of billions of dollars cited by the Post is still far short of the $500 billion that the National Governors Association has called for, which is the amount provided states in the $3 trillion package introduced by House Democrats this week. And lawmakers, including many Republicans, will likely resist the White House’s tax cut proposals, which many say aren’t targeted to those most affected by the pandemic and economic shutdown.
Another potential obstacle: While White House officials have reportedly assured conservative leaders that any new money will be directed only toward addressing pandemic-related issues, that’s easier said than done, the Post’s Robert Costa, Jeff Stein and Seung Min Kim write: “budget experts say it will be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent funding from being redirected by state leaders, or used for unrelated programs.”
More aid to states is likely, but how much? Trump will face increasing pressure to provide more money to help states plug budget holes ripped open by the pandemic, and to give states more flexibility in how they use the funding already provided. Some of that pressure will come from Republican governors and lawmakers pressing for help. Concerns about perilous state finances and potentially severe cuts to services ahead of the November election will only add to the pressure.
“With those political considerations at the mind, some top Republicans have privately shifted from opposing new cash for states altogether to limiting the package’s size and scope,” the Post says. “One idea circulating among lawmakers has included tying the amount of aid allocated to each state to its revenue losses since the pandemic began, said two outside advisers to the White House.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-12--Pelosi’s $3 Trillion Stimulus Plan

Pelosi’s $3 Trillion Stimulus Plan

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has been encouraged to “ think big ” for the next coronavirus relief package , and it looks like she has taken that advice to heart .
House Democrats on Tuesday released the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act – or HEROES Act – and it comes with a very big price tag : $ 3 trillion .
If passed , the bill would become the largest piece of legislation in U.S. history .
The bill – all 1,815 pages of it – may pass the House when it comes up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s little chance it will become law any time soon .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , who says Republicans want to “ take a pause ” on further efforts to provide relief in the midst of the coronavirus crisis , gave the new bill a cool reception , describing it as a little more than a “ big laundry list of pet priorities.
” A spokesman for Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) said the legislation is `` DOA in the Senate.
” Pelosi defended the bill and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think big for the people now because , if we don ’ t , it will cost more in lives and livelihoods later , ” she said .
“ Not acting is the most expensive course .
We face the biggest catastrophe in our nation ’ s history.
” She noted that low interest rates , which have helped Wall Street rebound , can be taken advantage of to fund the proposed programs , which aim to help ordinary Americans .
Some highlights from the bill : • A second round of $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children , with a $ 6,000 limit per household • The $ 600 per week supplement for unemployment benefits extended through January • $ 175 billion to help renters and homeowners cover housing costs • $ 25 billion for the U.S .
Postal Service • $ 10 billion for the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program that provides grants to small businesses • Two-year rollback of the $ 10,000 limit on state and local tax ( SALT ) deductions .
Disappointment on the left : Leaders of the progressive wing of the Democratic party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go far enough to help Americans struggling with an economic crisis .
For example , Reps. Pramila Jayapal ( D-WA ) and Mark Pocan ( D-WI ) had pushed for a “ Paycheck Guarantee ” program to be included in the bill , but it was reportedly left out by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal ( D-MA ) on the grounds that it would be too complicated and expensive , with a cost of $ 600 billion over six months .
Still , progressives are expected to support the legislation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we ca n't do everything in this bill.
” Skepticism on the right : Republicans reiterated their view that it ’ s time to stop and see how the current relief efforts are having an effect .
`` I do n't think there ’ s any sense of urgency until we see how some of these programs that are already authorized and funded are working , and it seems like , at least right now , they ’ re working pretty well , '' Sen. John Thune ( R-SD ) said Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is best seen as an opening offer from Democrats , who are hoping to pass another massive round of coronavirus relief spending .
Negotiations with reluctant Republicans could stretch on for weeks , though , and there ’ s good reason to think that the final relief package will end up looking quite different than the HEROES Act introduced Tuesday .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has been encouraged to “think big” for the next coronavirus relief package, and it looks like she has taken that advice to heart. House Democrats on Tuesday released the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act – or HEROES Act – and it comes with a very big price tag: $3 trillion.
If passed, the bill would become the largest piece of legislation in U.S. history.
The bill – all 1,815 pages of it – may pass the House when it comes up for an expected vote on Friday, but there’s little chance it will become law any time soon. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who says Republicans want to “take a pause” on further efforts to provide relief in the midst of the coronavirus crisis, gave the new bill a cool reception, describing it as a little more than a “big laundry list of pet priorities.” A spokesman for Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said the legislation is "DOA in the Senate.”
Pelosi defended the bill and its unprecedented cost. “We must think big for the people now because, if we don’t, it will cost more in lives and livelihoods later,” she said. “Not acting is the most expensive course. We face the biggest catastrophe in our nation’s history.” She noted that low interest rates, which have helped Wall Street rebound, can be taken advantage of to fund the proposed programs, which aim to help ordinary Americans.
Some highlights from the bill:
A second round of $1,200 stimulus checks for both adults and children, with a $6,000 limit per household
The $600 per week supplement for unemployment benefits extended through January
$540 billion for state governments, including Washington D.C. and tribal territories
$375 billion for local governments
$200 billion to provide hazard pay to essential employees, including health care workers
$175 billion to help renters and homeowners cover housing costs
$75 billion for testing and tracing efforts
$25 billion for the U.S. Postal Service
$10 billion for the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program that provides grants to small businesses
$3.6 billion to beef up federal election infrastructure
Two-year rollback of the $10,000 limit on state and local tax (SALT) deductions.
Disappointment on the left: Leaders of the progressive wing of the Democratic party charged that the bill doesn’t go far enough to help Americans struggling with an economic crisis. For example, Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) had pushed for a “Paycheck Guarantee” program to be included in the bill, but it was reportedly left out by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) on the grounds that it would be too complicated and expensive, with a cost of $600 billion over six months.
Still, progressives are expected to support the legislation, heeding Pelosi’s recent assertion that “we can't do everything in this bill.”
Skepticism on the right: Republicans reiterated their view that it’s time to stop and see how the current relief efforts are having an effect. "I don't think there’s any sense of urgency until we see how some of these programs that are already authorized and funded are working, and it seems like, at least right now, they’re working pretty well," Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said Tuesday.
What comes next: The bill is best seen as an opening offer from Democrats, who are hoping to pass another massive round of coronavirus relief spending. Negotiations with reluctant Republicans could stretch on for weeks, though, and there’s good reason to think that the final relief package will end up looking quite different than the HEROES Act introduced Tuesday.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-16--House Passes $3 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Bill Destined to Die in the Senate

The House on Friday night passed a $ 3 trillion emergency coronavirus relief bill in a 208-199 vote .
The package , which would be the largest emergency spending package in U.S. history , is destined to be ignored by the Senate .
The 1,800-page legislation , titled the HEROES Act , would provide nearly $ 1 trillion in additional aid to state and local governments as well as another round of direct payments to individuals , a further extension of enhanced unemployment benefits , hazard pay for frontline workers and funding for increased coronavirus testing .
But the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priorities , such as allowing voting by mail this November and a temporary repeal of the cap on state and local tax deductions .
Senate Republicans dismissed the legislation as a “ left-wing wish list ” and said the bill would be dead on arrival in their chamber .
President Trump has also pledged to veto the legislation should it get to his desk .
An opening offer : House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed ahead with the package in order to lay down a marker for bipartisan talks .
“ We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re open to negotiation , ” she told reporters on Thursday .
No formal negotiations are happening , though , as Republicans and the White House say they want to assess how the trillions of dollars previously provided are working .
Some Democratic defections : The package passed despite some objections from both progressives , who said the legislation didn ’ t go far enough , and moderate Democrats , who worried about backing a partisan bill that couldn ’ t become law .
Fourteen Democrats voted against the legislation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of New York , voted for it .
Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington , a leader of the progressive caucus , had pushed for a $ 600 billion “ Paycheck Guarantee ” program that would have providing federal funding to cover business payrolls , but Democratic leadership rejected the plan as too costly and complicated .
Jayapal announced Friday she would oppose the HEROES Act , saying that in her view , it “ ultimately fails to match the scale of this crisis.
” Rep. Abigail Spanberger , a moderate Democrat from Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Unfortunately , many Members of Congress — including some in my own party — have decided to use this package as an opportunity to make political statements and propose a bill that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law , further delaying the help so many need .
Therefore , I will respectfully vote against this bill , ” she said in a statement .
The bottom line : Any bipartisan progress on the next round of coronavirus relief is likely still a long way away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s National Economic Council , on Friday dismissed the idea of another large spending package , and — as you can see below — the White House is still pushing for new tax cuts .
“ The point here is another $ 3 trillion package just seems off target to me , ” Larry Kudlow , director of President Trump ’ s National Economic Council , said Friday .
“ I don ’ t believe we can spend ourselves into prosperity over time , and instead I believe that President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes and regulations , are exactly the tonic that we should pursue going forward in a new round of negotiations.
” Those ideas are unlikely to find much support among House Democrats .

The House on Friday night passed a $3 trillion emergency coronavirus relief bill in a 208-199 vote. The package, which would be the largest emergency spending package in U.S. history, is destined to be ignored by the Senate.
The 1,800-page legislation, titled the HEROES Act, would provide nearly $1 trillion in additional aid to state and local governments as well as another round of direct payments to individuals, a further extension of enhanced unemployment benefits, hazard pay for frontline workers and funding for increased coronavirus testing. But the bill also includes a number of other Democratic priorities, such as allowing voting by mail this November and a temporary repeal of the cap on state and local tax deductions.
Senate Republicans dismissed the legislation as a “left-wing wish list” and said the bill would be dead on arrival in their chamber. President Trump has also pledged to veto the legislation should it get to his desk.
An opening offer: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed ahead with the package in order to lay down a marker for bipartisan talks. “We’re putting our offer on the table. We’re open to negotiation,” she told reporters on Thursday. No formal negotiations are happening, though, as Republicans and the White House say they want to assess how the trillions of dollars previously provided are working.
Some Democratic defections: The package passed despite some objections from both progressives, who said the legislation didn’t go far enough, and moderate Democrats, who worried about backing a partisan bill that couldn’t become law. Fourteen Democrats voted against the legislation, while one Republican, Rep. Peter King of New York, voted for it.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a leader of the progressive caucus, had pushed for a $600 billion “Paycheck Guarantee” program that would have providing federal funding to cover business payrolls, but Democratic leadership rejected the plan as too costly and complicated. Jayapal announced Friday she would oppose the HEROES Act, saying that in her view, it “ultimately fails to match the scale of this crisis.”
Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a moderate Democrat from Virginia, also came out against the bill. “Unfortunately, many Members of Congress — including some in my own party — have decided to use this package as an opportunity to make political statements and propose a bill that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law, further delaying the help so many need. Therefore, I will respectfully vote against this bill,” she said in a statement.
The bottom line: Any bipartisan progress on the next round of coronavirus relief is likely still a long way away. Larry Kudlow, director of President Trump’s National Economic Council, on Friday dismissed the idea of another large spending package, and — as you can see below — the White House is still pushing for new tax cuts.
“The point here is another $3 trillion package just seems off target to me,” Larry Kudlow, director of President Trump’s National Economic Council, said Friday. “I don’t believe we can spend ourselves into prosperity over time, and instead I believe that President Trump’s original policies, which reduced taxes and regulations, are exactly the tonic that we should pursue going forward in a new round of negotiations.”
Those ideas are unlikely to find much support among House Democrats.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-15--U.S. Cities Projected to Lose $360 Billion in Revenue From Pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic is projected to cost U.S. cities up to $ 134 billion in lost revenues this year and more than $ 360 billion through 2022 , with the shortfalls varying significantly by state and the makeup of local revenue streams , according to a new analysis by the National League of Cities , an advocacy group .
The analysis was based on calculations of how expected joblessness in each state will affect collective revenue for cities , towns and villages in the state , based on a projection that every 1 percentage point increase in unemployment results in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The analysis also factored in assessments of state revenue streams , with those more dependent on sales or income taxes hit harder than those that rely on property taxes .
The report projects that Pennsylvania ’ s cities , towns and villages will be hit hardest , with 2020 revenue losses of 40 % .
Municipalities in Kentucky , Hawaii , Michigan and Nevada are also projected to lose more than a third of their collective revenue .
Connecticut is projected to suffer the smallest decline , at 9.3 % .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided the funds from the federal government , we won ’ t be a part of the economic solution , ” Clarence Anthony , the league ’ s chief executive officer , told Bloomberg News .
“ This survey , and the findings , puts a face on the impact of the pandemic and the need for city leaders to get direct funding to respond quicker than at the state level , where most of the funding has gone in the past .
”

The coronavirus pandemic is projected to cost U.S. cities up to $134 billion in lost revenues this year and more than $360 billion through 2022, with the shortfalls varying significantly by state and the makeup of local revenue streams, according to a new analysis by the National League of Cities, an advocacy group.
The analysis was based on calculations of how expected joblessness in each state will affect collective revenue for cities, towns and villages in the state, based on a projection that every 1 percentage point increase in unemployment results in a 3% drop in tax revenues. The analysis also factored in assessments of state revenue streams, with those more dependent on sales or income taxes hit harder than those that rely on property taxes.
The report projects that Pennsylvania’s cities, towns and villages will be hit hardest, with 2020 revenue losses of 40%. Municipalities in Kentucky, Hawaii, Michigan and Nevada are also projected to lose more than a third of their collective revenue. Connecticut is projected to suffer the smallest decline, at 9.3%.
“If America’s cities are not provided the funds from the federal government, we won’t be a part of the economic solution,” Clarence Anthony, the league’s chief executive officer, told Bloomberg News. “This survey, and the findings, puts a face on the impact of the pandemic and the need for city leaders to get direct funding to respond quicker than at the state level, where most of the funding has gone in the past.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-15--36.5 Million Jobs Lost

36.5 Million Jobs Lost

Nearly 3 million Americans filed new unemployment claims last week , the Labor Department said Thursday , lifting the total over the past eight weeks to 36.5 million .
Last week ’ s total was higher than economists ’ consensus expectations of 2.7 million new claims , but represents a drop of nearly 200,000 from the previous week .
“ The weekly count of claims filings still remains massive relative to the norms that existed prior to the spread of COVID-19 , but at least the figures have declined in each of the most recent six reported weeks , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a note to clients .
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett called the numbers “ better than expected ” and told reporters that the new data showed signs of an economic rebound .
“ The fact that we came in under 3 million suggests that the turning on of the economy is beginning , and it ’ s beginning to show up in the data , ” he said .
Continuing claims rose by 456,000 to a record 22.83 million , but the previous week ’ s total was revised down to 22.38 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics , said suggests that the number of people returning to work nearly matches those losing jobs .
“ What the continuing claims figures and the insured unemployment rate are more reliably telling us is that the unemployment rate was close to peaking at the start of May , as the number of people returning to their jobs almost offset new job losers , ” Ashworth wrote in a note .
“ With most states only beginning to ease their lockdowns within the last 10 days , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hiring versus firing over the next couple of weeks , which suggests the unemployment rate will begin to drop back.
” Still , economist Ian Shepherdson of Pantheon Macroeconomics said he was pushing back his target for when new claims would drop below 1 million from mid-June to the end of next month .
How much is unemployment insurance helping ?
A new report from the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution finds that unemployment insurance offset only a small portion of lost income in March , but covered about half of lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states and the federal government paid out $ 48 billion in unemployment benefits .
“ The unemployment system has sent out more money in April of 2020 than it did in the first four months of 2009 during the Great Recession , ” the authors write .

Nearly 3 million Americans filed new unemployment claims last week, the Labor Department said Thursday, lifting the total over the past eight weeks to 36.5 million.
Last week’s total was higher than economists’ consensus expectations of 2.7 million new claims, but represents a drop of nearly 200,000 from the previous week. “The weekly count of claims filings still remains massive relative to the norms that existed prior to the spread of COVID-19, but at least the figures have declined in each of the most recent six reported weeks,” J.P. Morgan economist Daniel Silver wrote in a note to clients.
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett called the numbers “better than expected” and told reporters that the new data showed signs of an economic rebound. “The fact that we came in under 3 million suggests that the turning on of the economy is beginning, and it’s beginning to show up in the data,” he said.
Continuing claims rose by 456,000 to a record 22.83 million, but the previous week’s total was revised down to 22.38 million, a change that Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics, said suggests that the number of people returning to work nearly matches those losing jobs.
“What the continuing claims figures and the insured unemployment rate are more reliably telling us is that the unemployment rate was close to peaking at the start of May, as the number of people returning to their jobs almost offset new job losers,” Ashworth wrote in a note. “With most states only beginning to ease their lockdowns within the last 10 days, we expect a much bigger swing in hiring versus firing over the next couple of weeks, which suggests the unemployment rate will begin to drop back.”
Still, economist Ian Shepherdson of Pantheon Macroeconomics said he was pushing back his target for when new claims would drop below 1 million from mid-June to the end of next month.
How much is unemployment insurance helping? A new report from the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution finds that unemployment insurance offset only a small portion of lost income in March, but covered about half of lost wages and salaries in April, when states and the federal government paid out $48 billion in unemployment benefits. “The unemployment system has sent out more money in April of 2020 than it did in the first four months of 2009 during the Great Recession,” the authors write.


thefiscaltimes--2020-05-11--A V-Shaped Recovery? Think "Swoosh" Instead

Some politicians are promising a “ v-shaped ” recovery , in which the economy bounces back from its coronavirus-induced swoon @ @ @ @ @ pre-crisis trajectory , but many experts are now focused on a “ swoosh-shaped ” rebound @ @ @ @ @ Street Journal Monday .
With a swoosh , the economy bounces back but takes a @ @ @ @ @ to the trend line .
Other possibilities being debated by economists include U , Z @ @ @ @ @ , each with its own peculiar dynamics .
Although there is still enormous uncertainty about @ @ @ @ @ out , it ’ s becoming increasingly likely that it will take a significant amount @ @ @ @ @ is not going to be a quick recovery , ” Mark Schneider , chief executive @ @ @ @ @ the Journal .
“ This is going to be a several-quarter , if not several-year @ @ @ @ @

Some politicians are promising a “v-shaped” recovery, in which the economy bounces back from its coronavirus-induced swoon and rapidly returns to its pre-crisis trajectory, but many experts are now focused on a “swoosh-shaped” rebound, according to The Wall Street Journal Monday. With a swoosh, the economy bounces back but takes a much longer time to return to the trend line. Other possibilities being debated by economists include U, Z, W and L-shaped recoveries, each with its own peculiar dynamics.
Although there is still enormous uncertainty about how a recovery will play out, it’s becoming increasingly likely that it will take a significant amount of time. “This is not going to be a quick recovery,” Mark Schneider, chief executive of Nestlé SA, told the Journal. “This is going to be a several-quarter, if not several-year kind of process.”