thefiscaltimes--2020-04-23--Another 4 Million Jobs Lost, Lifting Total to 26 Million Over Five Weeks

The coronavirus pandemic continues to crush the labor market , as more than 4.4 million Americans filed new claims for jobless benefits last week , according to seasonally adjusted data released by the government on Thursday .
The latest report , which covers the week ending April 18 , brings the total number of jobs lost over the past five weeks to 26.4 million , more than were added in the years since the Great Recession .
Even without the Labor Department ’ s adjustments to even out seasonal changes , 24.4 million workers applied for benefits over the five-week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers has lost a job in the coronavirus shutdown .
“ For comparison , in the period before the coronavirus hit , just over a million workers would apply for UI in a typical five-week span , and in the worst five-week stretch of the Great Recession , it was less than four million , ” Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute says .
A slow downward trend : The latest figures represent a decline from the previous three weeks .
“ A bit less awful , ” Ian Shepherdson , chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a note .
“ Another horrendous number , but at least the trajectory is clearly downwards.
” Shepherdson expects claims to decline again next week , but notes that the pace of “ file for unemployment ” searches on Google means that it may still be several more weeks before new filings drop below 1 million — a level that would still be far higher than the 665,000 claims filed in the single worst week after the 2008 financial crisis .
These numbers still understate the true toll : Millions of workers affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been able to apply for unemployment benefits .
An unemployment rate approaching 20 % : Economists expect the unemployment rate for April will climb to between 15 % and 20 % , or possibly even higher .
“ All else equal , job losses of this magnitude would translate into an unemployment rate of 18.3 % , ” Shierholz writes .
“ However , the official unemployment rate , when it is released , will likely not reflect all coronavirus-related layoffs .
This is due to the fact that jobless workers are only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking work .
That means many workers who lose their job as a result of the virus will be counted as dropping out of the labor force instead of as unemployed , because they are unable to search for work due to the lockdown.
” The squeeze on state budgets : A new analysis by researchers at the Urban Institute estimates that an unemployment rate averaging 12 % over one year would mean a $ 340 billion revenue decline for states and a $ 385 billion shortfall in state budgets , even without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face .
“ Medicaid enrollment will grow at the same time that tax revenues are falling , putting the squeeze on state budgets , ” said Kathy Hempstead , senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation .
The researchers say that increasing the federal matching rate for Medicaid and the Children 's Health Insurance Program would ease fiscal pressure on states , and that linking that financial support for health programs to unemployment rates would increase health coverage and give states greater budgetary certainty .

The coronavirus pandemic continues to crush the labor market, as more than 4.4 million Americans filed new claims for jobless benefits last week, according to seasonally adjusted data released by the government on Thursday.
The latest report, which covers the week ending April 18, brings the total number of jobs lost over the past five weeks to 26.4 million, more than were added in the years since the Great Recession. Even without the Labor Department’s adjustments to even out seasonal changes, 24.4 million workers applied for benefits over the five-week span. Nearly one in six American workers has lost a job in the coronavirus shutdown.
“For comparison, in the period before the coronavirus hit, just over a million workers would apply for UI in a typical five-week span, and in the worst five-week stretch of the Great Recession, it was less than four million,” Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute says.
A slow downward trend: The latest figures represent a decline from the previous three weeks. “A bit less awful,” Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, wrote in a note. “Another horrendous number, but at least the trajectory is clearly downwards.”
Shepherdson expects claims to decline again next week, but notes that the pace of “file for unemployment” searches on Google means that it may still be several more weeks before new filings drop below 1 million — a level that would still be far higher than the 665,000 claims filed in the single worst week after the 2008 financial crisis.
These numbers still understate the true toll: Millions of workers affected by the pandemic still haven’t been able to apply for unemployment benefits.
An unemployment rate approaching 20%: Economists expect the unemployment rate for April will climb to between 15% and 20%, or possibly even higher. “All else equal, job losses of this magnitude would translate into an unemployment rate of 18.3%,” Shierholz writes. “However, the official unemployment rate, when it is released, will likely not reflect all coronavirus-related layoffs. This is due to the fact that jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work. That means many workers who lose their job as a result of the virus will be counted as dropping out of the labor force instead of as unemployed, because they are unable to search for work due to the lockdown.”
The squeeze on state budgets: A new analysis by researchers at the Urban Institute estimates that an unemployment rate averaging 12% over one year would mean a $340 billion revenue decline for states and a $385 billion shortfall in state budgets, even without factoring in the direct pandemic-related costs states face. “Medicaid enrollment will grow at the same time that tax revenues are falling, putting the squeeze on state budgets,” said Kathy Hempstead, senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The researchers say that increasing the federal matching rate for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program would ease fiscal pressure on states, and that linking that financial support for health programs to unemployment rates would increase health coverage and give states greater budgetary certainty.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-23--House Passes $484 Billion Coronavirus Aid Package

The House on Thursday passed the $ 484 billion pandemic relief package , providing an additional $ 310 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses as well as additional money for hospitals and virus testing .
The vote , 388-5 , stretched on for more than an hour as members , most of whom wore masks while not speaking during floor debate , took turns voting in alphabetical order .
The no votes : Republicans Andy Biggs ( AZ ) , Ken Buck ( CO ) , Jody Hice ( GA ) , Thomas Massie ( KY ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rep. Justin Amash ( I-MI ) voted present .
A new committee to oversee the federal coronavirus response : The House also voted to establish a select committee to oversee the Trump administration ’ s implementation of the nearly $ 3 trillion in coronavirus relief provided by Congress .
The new panel , to be led by House Majority Whip James Clyburn ( D-SC ) , will include seven Democrats and five Republicans .
The vote approving the committee was 212-182 , along party lines .
Republicans objected to the committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political attacks against President Trump and redundant given that existing committees have jurisdiction over the pandemic response .
But Democrats said that the trillions of dollars in emergency funding merited dedicated oversight .
“ The committee will root out waste , fraud and abuse , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday .
“ It will be laser-focused on ensuring that taxpayer money goes to workers , paychecks and benefits .
And it will ensure that the federal response is based on the best possible science and guided by health experts , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploited by profiteers and price gougers .
”

The House on Thursday passed the $484 billion pandemic relief package, providing an additional $310 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses as well as additional money for hospitals and virus testing.
The vote, 388-5, stretched on for more than an hour as members, most of whom wore masks while not speaking during floor debate, took turns voting in alphabetical order.
The no votes: Republicans Andy Biggs (AZ), Ken Buck (CO), Jody Hice (GA), Thomas Massie (KY) and Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY). Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) voted present.
A new committee to oversee the federal coronavirus response: The House also voted to establish a select committee to oversee the Trump administration’s implementation of the nearly $3 trillion in coronavirus relief provided by Congress. The new panel, to be led by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), will include seven Democrats and five Republicans.
The vote approving the committee was 212-182, along party lines.
Republicans objected to the committee, saying it’s meant to generate political attacks against President Trump and redundant given that existing committees have jurisdiction over the pandemic response. But Democrats said that the trillions of dollars in emergency funding merited dedicated oversight.
“The committee will root out waste, fraud and abuse,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. “It will be laser-focused on ensuring that taxpayer money goes to workers, paychecks and benefits. And it will ensure that the federal response is based on the best possible science and guided by health experts, and that the money invested is not being exploited by profiteers and price gougers.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-22--Op-Ed of the Day: Technocrats or Politicians?

Narayana Kocherlakota , the former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis , argues at Bloomberg Wednesday that the @ @ @ @ @ as the leading manager of the economy .
Near-zero interest rates mean that politicians in @ @ @ @ @ are now in charge , with fiscal policy as their primary tool .
“ For @ @ @ @ @ the central bank ’ s unelected technocrats have been able to fight recessions relatively free @ @ @ @ @ have focused on whether to toggle a single policy instrument – short-term interest rates – @ @ @ @ @ , the government will have to step in with fiscal policy – that is , @ @ @ @ @ .
Its tools come in all shapes and sizes , and the choice among them @ @ @ @ @ Although he ’ s hardly a neutral observer , Kocherlakota says that given the degree @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s a good chance “ that we ’ ll come to miss @ @ @ @ @ when the technocrats at the Fed were in charge .
”

Narayana Kocherlakota, the former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, argues at Bloomberg Wednesday that the Fed is losing its role as the leading manager of the economy. Near-zero interest rates mean that politicians in Congress and the White House are now in charge, with fiscal policy as their primary tool.
“For the past 40 years, the central bank’s unelected technocrats have been able to fight recessions relatively free of politics, because they have focused on whether to toggle a single policy instrument – short-term interest rates – up or down. Now, the government will have to step in with fiscal policy – that is, spending financed by sovereign borrowing. Its tools come in all shapes and sizes, and the choice among them will be highly political.”
Although he’s hardly a neutral observer, Kocherlakota says that given the degree of polarization in American politics, there’s a good chance “that we’ll come to miss the good old days, when the technocrats at the Fed were in charge.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-22--McConnell and Pelosi Set Up Clash Over Coronavirus Money to States

The $ 484 billion coronavirus aid package passed by the Senate Tuesday won ’ t provide any more federal money to states facing an increasingly grim fiscal outlook as revenues dry up due to the pandemic and economic shutdown — and comments from congressional leaders Wednesday suggest that federal relief for state and local governments may not come without a clash .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Bloomberg Television Wednesday that a “ major package ” of aid for state and local governments will be part of the next phase of coronavirus legislation — and President Trump has signaled support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitch McConnell appears to have other ideas , though .
McConnell wants to ‘ push the pause button ’ : The GOP leader blocked adding more money for state and local governments to the latest package passed by the Senate and continues to resist adding such funding .
“ I said yesterday we ’ re going to push the pause button here , because I think this whole business of additional assistance for state and local governments need to be thoroughly evaluated , ” McConnell said on Hugh Hewitt ’ s syndicated radio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be any desire on the Republican side to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations . ''
McConnell said that the ballooning national debt should be part of that evaluation : “ I think we need to have a full debate not only about if we do state and local , how will they spend it .
But also , we haven ’ t had much discussion about adding $ 2.7 trillion to the national debt , and the way that could indeed also threaten the future of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , McConnell ’ s office highlighted his remarks on assistance to states under the header “ On Stopping Blue State Bailouts.
” A $ 500 billion fight : Congress provided $ 150 billion for state and local government efforts to combat the coronavirus as a part of last month 's $ 2.2 trillion relief package , but the National Governors Association earlier this month called on lawmakers to provide at least $ 500 billion in additional aid to help states plug massive pandemic-related holes in their budgets and avoid damaging cuts to services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and Bill Cassidy ( R-LA ) this week proposed a $ 500 billion fund to be included in the next coronavirus rescue package .
“ The big question is how much of it can get by McConnell , ” The Hill Alexander Bolton writes .
McConnell ’ s comments may also put him at odds with President Trump , who said Tuesday that he had discussed aid to state and local governments with New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo and that the funding would be part of the next coronavirus legislation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We talked about that — Governor Cuomo and myself — and I agree with him on that , ” Trump said .
“ And I think most Republicans agree too , and Democrats .
And that ’ s part of phase four.
” Cuomo told reporters Wednesday , “ The president gets it .
He 's going to work very hard in the next piece of legislation . ''
Letting states declare bankruptcy instead ?
In response to a question from Hewitt about “ how badly mismanaged some states have been , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that he supports allowing states to declare bankruptcy rather than receive federal bailouts .
“ I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route , ” McConnell said .
“ It ’ s saved some cities , and there ’ s no good reason for it not to be available .
My guess is their first choice would be for the federal government to borrow money from future generations to send it down to them now so they don ’ t have to do that .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be in favor of.
” An unpopular idea … or ‘ little more than a farce ’ : Current law prohibits states from declaring bankruptcy , and suggestions to change that have flopped in the past .
“ The idea of allowing states to file for bankruptcy was raised in the wake of the last recession , ” Bloomberg ’ s Steven T. Dennis and William Selway report .
“ It drew widespread disdain from Wall Street investors , public employee unions and both Republican and Democratic governors , who said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause even the most fiscally sound states to face higher interest rates because of the risk the debt could be wiped out in court.
” Bloomberg columnist Brian Chappatta explains why the state bankruptcy idea isn ’ t likely to go anywhere this time either .
“ The concept of state bankruptcy as a solution to get through this unprecedented period is little more than a farce , ” he writes , adding : “ As much as McConnell tries , this is not about profligate Democratic governors and their underfunded public pension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level , many states will have to impose draconian austerity measures without federal support because governors need to balance their budgets .
That means either more state employees joining the ranks of the unemployed , higher tax rates ( and therefore less money changing hands in local economies ) , further neglect of critical public infrastructure improvements , or once again shortchanging the pension promises of tomorrow to make the numbers add up today .
Potentially all of the above .
“ Withholding state support , in other words , would directly counteract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators have already set in motion to bolster the American economy .
What good is a $ 1,200 check if states are backed into raising taxes that take most of it away ?
Will small businesses bounce back if their neighbors are unemployed , or local roads and bridges remain decrepit ?
” The bottom line : Pelosi , for one , played down the significance of McConnell ’ s reluctance to provide money to states .
“ Let me remind you , this is Mitch McConnell , who said on the floor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will do anything but the $ 250 billion ” to replenish the small business loan program , she said in her Bloomberg interview .
“ Now , we are up to $ 480 ” billion in this week ’ s bill .

The $484 billion coronavirus aid package passed by the Senate Tuesday won’t provide any more federal money to states facing an increasingly grim fiscal outlook as revenues dry up due to the pandemic and economic shutdown — and comments from congressional leaders Wednesday suggest that federal relief for state and local governments may not come without a clash.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Bloomberg Television Wednesday that a “major package” of aid for state and local governments will be part of the next phase of coronavirus legislation — and President Trump has signaled support for such aid. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appears to have other ideas, though.
McConnell wants to ‘push the pause button’: The GOP leader blocked adding more money for state and local governments to the latest package passed by the Senate and continues to resist adding such funding. “I said yesterday we’re going to push the pause button here, because I think this whole business of additional assistance for state and local governments need to be thoroughly evaluated,” McConnell said on Hugh Hewitt’s syndicated radio show. "There’s not going to be any desire on the Republican side to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations."
McConnell said that the ballooning national debt should be part of that evaluation: “I think we need to have a full debate not only about if we do state and local, how will they spend it. But also, we haven’t had much discussion about adding $2.7 trillion to the national debt, and the way that could indeed also threaten the future of the country.”
In a press release, McConnell’s office highlighted his remarks on assistance to states under the header “On Stopping Blue State Bailouts.”
A $500 billion fight: Congress provided $150 billion for state and local government efforts to combat the coronavirus as a part of last month's $2.2 trillion relief package, but the National Governors Association earlier this month called on lawmakers to provide at least $500 billion in additional aid to help states plug massive pandemic-related holes in their budgets and avoid damaging cuts to services. Sens. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) this week proposed a $500 billion fund to be included in the next coronavirus rescue package. “The big question is how much of it can get by McConnell,” The Hill Alexander Bolton writes.
McConnell’s comments may also put him at odds with President Trump, who said Tuesday that he had discussed aid to state and local governments with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and that the funding would be part of the next coronavirus legislation, along with money for infrastructure. “We talked about that — Governor Cuomo and myself — and I agree with him on that,” Trump said. “And I think most Republicans agree too, and Democrats. And that’s part of phase four.”
Cuomo told reporters Wednesday, “The president gets it. He's going to work very hard in the next piece of legislation."
Letting states declare bankruptcy instead? In response to a question from Hewitt about “how badly mismanaged some states have been, and their unfunded liabilities,” McConnell also said that he supports allowing states to declare bankruptcy rather than receive federal bailouts.
“I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route,” McConnell said. “It’s saved some cities, and there’s no good reason for it not to be available. My guess is their first choice would be for the federal government to borrow money from future generations to send it down to them now so they don’t have to do that. That’s not something I’m going to be in favor of.”
An unpopular idea … or ‘little more than a farce’: Current law prohibits states from declaring bankruptcy, and suggestions to change that have flopped in the past. “The idea of allowing states to file for bankruptcy was raised in the wake of the last recession,” Bloomberg’s Steven T. Dennis and William Selway report. “It drew widespread disdain from Wall Street investors, public employee unions and both Republican and Democratic governors, who said it would unsettle the bond market and cause even the most fiscally sound states to face higher interest rates because of the risk the debt could be wiped out in court.”
Bloomberg columnist Brian Chappatta explains why the state bankruptcy idea isn’t likely to go anywhere this time either. “The concept of state bankruptcy as a solution to get through this unprecedented period is little more than a farce,” he writes, adding:
“As much as McConnell tries, this is not about profligate Democratic governors and their underfunded public pension funds. At a basic, fundamental level, many states will have to impose draconian austerity measures without federal support because governors need to balance their budgets. That means either more state employees joining the ranks of the unemployed, higher tax rates (and therefore less money changing hands in local economies), further neglect of critical public infrastructure improvements, or once again shortchanging the pension promises of tomorrow to make the numbers add up today. Potentially all of the above.
“Withholding state support, in other words, would directly counteract the measures that McConnell and his fellow senators have already set in motion to bolster the American economy. What good is a $1,200 check if states are backed into raising taxes that take most of it away? Will small businesses bounce back if their neighbors are unemployed, or local roads and bridges remain decrepit?”
The bottom line: Pelosi, for one, played down the significance of McConnell’s reluctance to provide money to states. “Let me remind you, this is Mitch McConnell, who said on the floor of the Senate there is no way we will do anything but the $250 billion” to replenish the small business loan program, she said in her Bloomberg interview. “Now, we are up to $480” billion in this week’s bill.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-24--IRS Has Sent 88 Million Coronavirus Payments Totaling $158 Billion

The Internal Revenue Service said Friday that it had issued 88.1 million Economic Impact Payments totaling nearly $ 158 billion as of April 17 .
The tax agency also released a geographical breakdown of the payments .
Unsurprisingly , California and Texas — the most populous states — top the list , with residents having received $ 15.9 billion and $ 14.4 billion , respectively .
The highest average payments ( $ 2,048 ) went to Utah , likely as a result of larger families in the state , while the lowest ( $ 1,422 ) went to the District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have made many residents ineligible for the full direct payments , as The Wall Street Journal ’ s Richard Rubin notes .
Rubin reports that the next wave of IRS payments is set to go out over the next few days , with payments likely arriving by April 29 .
Those next payments , he says , will likely go to tax filers who provided the IRS with their bank information online by midday on April 22 and to Social Security beneficiaries who don ’ t file tax returns .
“ The IRS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this round of payments will put the $ 292 billion program of one-time payments— $ 1,200 per adult and $ 500 per child—well beyond its halfway point , ” Rubin writes .
People waiting to get their payments by check may have to wait far longer — potentially months , in some cases — because the government is only able to print about 5 million checks a week , according to Rubin .
The IRS says that more than 150 million payments will be sent out in all .
Here ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as of April 17 ( you can also see the list on the IRS website ) :

The Internal Revenue Service said Friday that it had issued 88.1 million Economic Impact Payments totaling nearly $158 billion as of April 17.
The tax agency also released a geographical breakdown of the payments. Unsurprisingly, California and Texas — the most populous states — top the list, with residents having received $15.9 billion and $14.4 billion, respectively. The highest average payments ($2,048) went to Utah, likely as a result of larger families in the state, while the lowest ($1,422) went to the District of Columbia, where higher incomes may have made many residents ineligible for the full direct payments, as The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin notes.
Rubin reports that the next wave of IRS payments is set to go out over the next few days, with payments likely arriving by April 29. Those next payments, he says, will likely go to tax filers who provided the IRS with their bank information online by midday on April 22 and to Social Security beneficiaries who don’t file tax returns. “The IRS hasn’t released amounts, but this round of payments will put the $292 billion program of one-time payments—$1,200 per adult and $500 per child—well beyond its halfway point,” Rubin writes.
People waiting to get their payments by check may have to wait far longer — potentially months, in some cases — because the government is only able to print about 5 million checks a week, according to Rubin.
The IRS says that more than 150 million payments will be sent out in all. Here’s the agency’s breakdown of payments sent as of April 17 (you can also see the list on the IRS website):


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-24--Deficit Will Hit $3.7 Trillion This Year: CBO

It ’ s pretty clear that the budget deficit will soar as the coronavirus wreaks havoc on the economy , but on Friday the Congressional Budget Office put a number on the expected shortfall in fiscal year 2020 : $ 3.7 trillion .
The new analysis from CBO director Phill Swagel includes preliminary estimates for how the economy will perform through the end of 2021 – and some of the numbers are pretty shocking .
Here ’ s a rundown : • The economy is projected to shrink by about 12 % in the second quarter of 2020 – an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the full calendar year , GDP is projected to decrease by 5.6 % .
• The unemployment rate will average about 15 % in the second and third quarters , up from less than 4 % in the first quarter .
The increase reflects the loss of 27 million jobs , with 8 million people leaving the labor force .
• The employment picture will begin to improve in the fourth quarter , but the labor market will struggle to recover completely , with the unemployment rate still at 9.5 % at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt ( federal debt held by the public ) will rise to 101 % of GDP in fiscal year 2020 .
• The deficit is projected to equal 17.9 % of GDP in the current fiscal year and 9.8 % of GDP in 2021 , sharply higher than the 4.6 % recorded in 2019 .
• Interest rates will remain at historically low levels , with 10-year Treasury notes averaging just 0.7 % in 2021 , only slightly higher than the current 0.6 % .
The CBO said its analysis assumes there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid .
If lawmakers and the White House are able to negotiate another relief package , as many expect , the deficit numbers would be that much larger .
Whatever the size of the deficit , the CBO noted that low interest rates are making increased debt loads more affordable .
“ Even with increased federal borrowing , declines in interest rates mean that net interest outlays will decline , ” the report says .
Michael Linden of the Groundwork Collaborative , a liberal-leaning Washington group that advocates for a fairer economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policymakers to take further steps to keep the economy afloat .
“ It means spend money to boost the economy and do n't worry about debt , ” he wrote Friday .

It’s pretty clear that the budget deficit will soar as the coronavirus wreaks havoc on the economy, but on Friday the Congressional Budget Office put a number on the expected shortfall in fiscal year 2020: $3.7 trillion.
The new analysis from CBO director Phill Swagel includes preliminary estimates for how the economy will perform through the end of 2021 – and some of the numbers are pretty shocking. Here’s a rundown:
The economy is projected to shrink by about 12% in the second quarter of 2020 – an annualized rate of 40%. For the full calendar year, GDP is projected to decrease by 5.6%.
The unemployment rate will average about 15% in the second and third quarters, up from less than 4% in the first quarter. The increase reflects the loss of 27 million jobs, with 8 million people leaving the labor force.
The employment picture will begin to improve in the fourth quarter, but the labor market will struggle to recover completely, with the unemployment rate still at 9.5% at the end of 2021.
The national debt (federal debt held by the public) will rise to 101% of GDP in fiscal year 2020.
The deficit is projected to equal 17.9% of GDP in the current fiscal year and 9.8% of GDP in 2021, sharply higher than the 4.6% recorded in 2019.
Interest rates will remain at historically low levels, with 10-year Treasury notes averaging just 0.7% in 2021, only slightly higher than the current 0.6%.
The CBO said its analysis assumes there is no further legislation to provide additional federal aid. If lawmakers and the White House are able to negotiate another relief package, as many expect, the deficit numbers would be that much larger.
Whatever the size of the deficit, the CBO noted that low interest rates are making increased debt loads more affordable. “Even with increased federal borrowing, declines in interest rates mean that net interest outlays will decline,” the report says.
Michael Linden of the Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal-leaning Washington group that advocates for a fairer economy, said that low interest rates should encourage policymakers to take further steps to keep the economy afloat. “It means spend money to boost the economy and don't worry about debt,” he wrote Friday.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-24--Why Some Tax Prep Clients Aren't Getting Their Stimulus Checks

Last week , a group of angry and desperate Citi Tax Financial customers gathered outside the company ’ s storefront in Augusta , Georgia .
Millions of Americans had received a big deposit from the IRS in their bank accounts , but they had not .
The IRS website told them their coronavirus stimulus checks were deposited in an account they didn ’ t recognize .
With an officer from the Richmond County Sheriff ’ s Office beside him and another officer shouting for people to be quiet , the tax preparation company ’ s owner told the crowd of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom wore masks , that he didn ’ t have their money .
Because of the baroque machinery that runs the tax preparation industry , the IRS had sent the money to a bank Citi Tax works with but the customers had not heard of .
That bank sent the payments back to the IRS .
Citi Tax ’ s clients — just like some clients of big tax brands such as H & R Block , Jackson Hewitt and TurboTax — didn ’ t get their money for the very reason Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place : They are poor .
The Georgia customers , almost all black women , are among the likely millions of Americans who are having trouble getting the stimulus funds they are owed .
The IRS ’ difficulty in swiftly getting payments to Americans has a basic , root cause : There are multiple private actors sitting between the IRS and tax filers .
“ Because we have an entire industry that survives on — and is a huge force in maintaining — this system in which they are third-party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delays and complications , ” said Chi Chi Wu , an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center .
The stimulus problems are part of a constellation of pain faced by the poor in accessing CARES Act money , from the possibility that banks could seize the money to pay off debts to advocates ’ fear that , when paper checks arrive , the check-cashing industry will snatch a hefty chunk .
The tax prep business is built on a complex infrastructure designed to extract fees that many customers can not afford .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ system to speedily get cash to its citizens , it ran into big problems .
The IRS estimates that it will send the $ 292 billion in CARES Act money to 171 million Americans .
The first wave of payments sent out last week was targeted to less than half of those eligible : 80 million Americans whose 2018 or 2019 tax refunds had been directly deposited .
To disburse most of the remaining payments , the agency is planning to mail 81 million paper checks bearing the president ’ s name , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But for a large portion of the 80 million people the IRS tried to reach last week , “ direct deposit ” is a bit of a misnomer .
Each year , the tax refunds of more than 20 million Americans , including many of Citi Tax ’ s customers , take a detour .
These customers don ’ t pay their tax preparation fees upfront , instead opting to have the fee taken out of their refund .
Because regulations prohibit tax prep companies from receiving refunds directly , a special , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that plays the middleman .
The bank takes out whatever fees are owed and then passes the remainder on to the customer .
Now some of these waystation banks are sending the checks back to the IRS , saying in public statements they received them by mistake , causing significant confusion and delays .
And it ’ s possible that some of these banks will extract fees before the stimulus money makes its way to those the government was trying to help .
Citi Tax customers aren ’ t the only ones facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about stimulus payment problems last Friday evening , around 1,400 responses flooded in .
People told us about madly refreshing the Get My Payment page from the IRS and calling their banks and tax preparers .
Some said they needed the money for food .
Some said they had been notified that payments went to accounts they didn ’ t recognize .
Others said they ’ d been told they had been paid , but the money hadn ’ t arrived .
“ My daughter and I are starving here , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelter .
I don ’ t know what we ’ re going to do if we don ’ t get this now , ” said Aaron Buckels , a cashier in Crawfordsville , Indiana .
Like many others who wrote in , Buckels depends on his tax refund every year .
He was eligible to file his taxes for free .
Not knowing that , he did his taxes through TurboTax , which charged him $ 80 , according to his receipt .
He was unable to afford that upfront .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , for TurboTax to use his refund to pay what he owed the company for preparing his return .
When it came to receiving what remained of his refund , Buckels chose to have it deposited on a debit card , an option heavily promoted by TurboTax .
The company pitches the Turbo Card option as a way to get refunds “ fast ” — but the fine print reveals that it ’ s only faster than a paper check .
It also comes with additional charges , including a $ 4.95 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the IRS was going to send Buckels ’ stimulus money , according to the agency ’ s Get My Payment page .
But the funds haven ’ t arrived .
Buckels was one of more than 50 TurboTax users who got both a refund transfer and a Turbo Card who told ProPublica they ’ d yet to receive their payments .
It ’ s still not clear where the breakdown occurred between the IRS , the bank that handled the refund transfer and the debit card .
Despite numerous customercomplaints about delays , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heineman , said , “ These are TurboTax customers and needed stimulus payments , so our actions reflect our efforts to deliver the funds to accounts as quickly as possible with no delay and no fees.
” He added that , “ The IRS is ultimately responsible for determining how and when the stimulus payments will be delivered to Americans.
” Refund transfers are a cornerstone of the tax prep industry ’ s business model .
Because low-income filers often do not have enough money on hand to pay high preparation fees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front them money .
A low-income , single mother with two children pays about $ 360 to have her taxes prepared at H & R Block , according to a company pricing chart .
With a refund transfer ( $ 40 ) , the toll rises to $ 400 .
The equivalent cost at Jackson Hewitt , the second largest chain , would be $ 610 , according to an estimate provided by a company employee .
Such a customer can probably expect a tax refund in the thousands of dollars because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pain of giving up several hundred dollars for tax prep help .
Refund transfers are very common across the industry .
For example , almost half the customers at Liberty Tax , the third-largest chain , get a refund transfer .
They are most common among taxpayers with income between $ 10,000 and $ 25,000 , according to IRS statistics .
Refund transfers are also often sold with other products .
Those include promotional cards that come with fees of their own .
H & R Block ’ s Emerald Card promises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But it charges users $ 1.50 to check their balance ; $ 3 for an ATM withdrawal ; a $ 4.95 “ inactivity ” fee ; and $ 35 to cash out the card at a bank .
Last year H & R Block reported $ 268 million in revenue from refund transfer and prepaid debit fees .
Consumer advocates argue transfers are predatory because they are essentially loans with effective annual interest rates over 200 % : $ 40 to $ 60 in finance charges just for deferring the tax prep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a refund to arrive .
And although the fees are generally disclosed to taxpayers , ProPublica has heard from dozens of taxpayers who didn ’ t understand why they were being charged or what the transfer meant .
Over the past week , the transfers emerged as a major problem for a different reason .
For most taxpayers who got a refund transfer , the IRS seems to have been tripped up because it had information for two accounts , the middleman ’ s and the final destination , instead of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge for the IRS , which Congress has gutted with budget cuts over the past 10 years .
In a statement to ProPublica , an H & R Block spokesperson pointed the finger at the government .
The IRS has “ created confusion by not always using clients ’ final destination bank account information for stimulus payments , ” the spokesperson said .
“ We share our clients ’ frustration that many of them have not yet received these much-needed payments due to IRS decisions , and we are actively working with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to client accounts.
” In a new FAQ on the IRS website , the agency confirmed that , “ In some cases , your Economic Impact Payment may have been directed to the bank account associated with the refund settlement product or prepaid debit card.
” Confusing matters even more , the agency said that there was an error on its Get My Payment website , which “ inaccurately indicated rejected payments were being sent back to the same taxpayer account a second time.
” In fact , those payments would be mailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Among the filers affected by this additional glitch were customers of MetaBank .
The publicly traded South Dakota-based firm provides refund transfers for independent tax prep storefronts like Citi Tax in Augusta .
The IRS wrongly sent about 300,000 payments to MetaBank ’ s temporary accounts , according to one of the bank ’ s tax prep partners .
Many customers say they are still waiting for their stimulus money .
The bank said in a statement it is “ deeply concerned ” by the delays and referred users to the IRS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry in many ways .
Refund transfers are most common in the South and particularly in counties with large black populations .
Richmond County , where Citi Tax is located , is majority black and about a third of taxpayers there with income under $ 25,000 get a refund transfer , according to IRS data .
The transfers tend to accompany returns involving the earned income tax credit , one of the country ’ s largest antipoverty programs and one primarily targeted at low-income workers with children .
This helps explain why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Citi Tax is also a prime example of an industry that is largely unregulated .
The store used to be part of the Instant Tax chain — once the fourth-largest tax prep chain in the U.S. until it was shut down in 2013 for what a Justice Department attorney called “ an astonishing array of repeated fraudulent and deceptive conduct.
” Under the same owner , Yonathan Michael , the Instant Tax location simply changed names and continued on .
Michael himself has been hit with over $ 90,000 in penalties by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him over the last three years .
But the IRS lacks the authority to prevent Michael from continuing to prepare hundreds of returns each year simply because of such violations .
Michael did not respond to questions from ProPublica .
Even after more than a week of confusion , many tax filers still do not have their checks and it ’ s unclear precisely which part of the system ’ s machinery broke down .
On Reddit and Facebook , frustrated tax filers looking for answers have created groups like “ justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & R Block stimulus group ” that have ballooned in recent days .
Some people who wrote to ProPublica have been told to expect paper checks , despite their wish to get direct deposit .
Others continue to get a payment status unknown message from the IRS website .
And adding to the mess , the banks that process refund transfers are handling the problems differently .
Some say they ’ ve sent payments back to the IRS , some say they will mail taxpayers checks themselves , and still others say they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Santa Barbara Tax Products Group , a subsidiary of the publicly traded Green Dot Corporation , suggests on its website that fees may be taken out of stimulus payments in some cases .
“ In the rare event that payments are inadvertently sent to [ Santa Barbara ] , a plan is in place to help identify and expedite the return of these payments immediately to the IRS so that the IRS can reissue payments directly to affected taxpayers as soon as possible , ” the statement says .
“ If we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Economic Impact Payment , the deposit will be processed as a federal refund , with all associated fees withheld from the deposit amount.
” Santa Barbara is the largest processor of refund transfers , handling them for several tax prep brands , including TurboTax .
An Intuit spokesman said its customers would not be charged fees .

Last week, a group of angry and desperate Citi Tax Financial customers gathered outside the company’s storefront in Augusta, Georgia. Millions of Americans had received a big deposit from the IRS in their bank accounts, but they had not. The IRS website told them their coronavirus stimulus checks were deposited in an account they didn’t recognize.
With an officer from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office beside him and another officer shouting for people to be quiet, the tax preparation company’s owner told the crowd of about 60, only a few of whom wore masks, that he didn’t have their money.
Because of the baroque machinery that runs the tax preparation industry, the IRS had sent the money to a bank Citi Tax works with but the customers had not heard of. That bank sent the payments back to the IRS.
Citi Tax’s clients — just like some clients of big tax brands such as H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt and TurboTax — didn’t get their money for the very reason Congress wanted to get money to them quickly in the first place: They are poor. The Georgia customers, almost all black women, are among the likely millions of Americans who are having trouble getting the stimulus funds they are owed. The IRS’ difficulty in swiftly getting payments to Americans has a basic, root cause: There are multiple private actors sitting between the IRS and tax filers.
“Because we have an entire industry that survives on — and is a huge force in maintaining — this system in which they are third-party intermediaries, you end up with these delays and complications,” said Chi Chi Wu, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.
The stimulus problems are part of a constellation of pain faced by the poor in accessing CARES Act money, from the possibility that banks could seize the money to pay off debts to advocates’ fear that, when paper checks arrive, the check-cashing industry will snatch a hefty chunk.
The tax prep business is built on a complex infrastructure designed to extract fees that many customers cannot afford. When the government tried to navigate that system to speedily get cash to its citizens, it ran into big problems.
The IRS estimates that it will send the $292 billion in CARES Act money to 171 million Americans. The first wave of payments sent out last week was targeted to less than half of those eligible: 80 million Americans whose 2018 or 2019 tax refunds had been directly deposited. To disburse most of the remaining payments, the agency is planning to mail 81 million paper checks bearing the president’s name, according to an IRS budget document.
But for a large portion of the 80 million people the IRS tried to reach last week, “direct deposit” is a bit of a misnomer. Each year, the tax refunds of more than 20 million Americans, including many of Citi Tax’s customers, take a detour. These customers don’t pay their tax preparation fees upfront, instead opting to have the fee taken out of their refund. Because regulations prohibit tax prep companies from receiving refunds directly, a special, temporary account is created at a bank that plays the middleman. The bank takes out whatever fees are owed and then passes the remainder on to the customer.
Now some of these waystation banks are sending the checks back to the IRS, saying in public statements they received them by mistake, causing significant confusion and delays. And it’s possible that some of these banks will extract fees before the stimulus money makes its way to those the government was trying to help.
Citi Tax customers aren’t the only ones facing problems. After ProPublica posted a questionnaire about stimulus payment problems last Friday evening, around 1,400 responses flooded in. People told us about madly refreshing the Get My Payment page from the IRS and calling their banks and tax preparers. Some said they needed the money for food. Some said they had been notified that payments went to accounts they didn’t recognize. Others said they’d been told they had been paid, but the money hadn’t arrived.
“My daughter and I are starving here, and we don’t have much of a shelter. I don’t know what we’re going to do if we don’t get this now,” said Aaron Buckels, a cashier in Crawfordsville, Indiana.
Like many others who wrote in, Buckels depends on his tax refund every year. He was eligible to file his taxes for free. Not knowing that, he did his taxes through TurboTax, which charged him $80, according to his receipt.
He was unable to afford that upfront. So, he paid another fee, $40 more, for TurboTax to use his refund to pay what he owed the company for preparing his return. When it came to receiving what remained of his refund, Buckels chose to have it deposited on a debit card, an option heavily promoted by TurboTax. The company pitches the Turbo Card option as a way to get refunds “fast” — but the fine print reveals that it’s only faster than a paper check. It also comes with additional charges, including a $4.95 monthly fee.
That’s where the IRS was going to send Buckels’ stimulus money, according to the agency’s Get My Payment page. But the funds haven’t arrived. Buckels was one of more than 50 TurboTax users who got both a refund transfer and a Turbo Card who told ProPublica they’d yet to receive their payments. It’s still not clear where the breakdown occurred between the IRS, the bank that handled the refund transfer and the debit card.
Despite numerous customercomplaints about delays, a spokesman for TurboTax-maker Intuit, Rick Heineman, said, “These are TurboTax customers and needed stimulus payments, so our actions reflect our efforts to deliver the funds to accounts as quickly as possible with no delay and no fees.” He added that, “The IRS is ultimately responsible for determining how and when the stimulus payments will be delivered to Americans.”
Refund transfers are a cornerstone of the tax prep industry’s business model. Because low-income filers often do not have enough money on hand to pay high preparation fees, the companies need a way to effectively front them money.
A low-income, single mother with two children pays about $360 to have her taxes prepared at H&R Block, according to a company pricing chart. With a refund transfer ($40), the toll rises to $400. The equivalent cost at Jackson Hewitt, the second largest chain, would be $610, according to an estimate provided by a company employee.
Such a customer can probably expect a tax refund in the thousands of dollars because of antipoverty tax credits, which helps dull the pain of giving up several hundred dollars for tax prep help. Refund transfers are very common across the industry. For example, almost half the customers at Liberty Tax, the third-largest chain, get a refund transfer. They are most common among taxpayers with income between $10,000 and $25,000, according to IRS statistics.
Refund transfers are also often sold with other products. Those include promotional cards that come with fees of their own. H&R Block’s Emerald Card promises “easy access to your tax refund.” But it charges users $1.50 to check their balance; $3 for an ATM withdrawal; a $4.95 “inactivity” fee; and $35 to cash out the card at a bank. Last year H&R Block reported $268 million in revenue from refund transfer and prepaid debit fees.
Consumer advocates argue transfers are predatory because they are essentially loans with effective annual interest rates over 200%: $40 to $60 in finance charges just for deferring the tax prep cost by the few weeks it takes for a refund to arrive. And although the fees are generally disclosed to taxpayers, ProPublica has heard from dozens of taxpayers who didn’t understand why they were being charged or what the transfer meant.
Over the past week, the transfers emerged as a major problem for a different reason. For most taxpayers who got a refund transfer, the IRS seems to have been tripped up because it had information for two accounts, the middleman’s and the final destination, instead of one. That complication has apparently been a challenge for the IRS, which Congress has gutted with budget cuts over the past 10 years.
The IRS didn’t respond to questions.
In a statement to ProPublica, an H&R Block spokesperson pointed the finger at the government. The IRS has “created confusion by not always using clients’ final destination bank account information for stimulus payments,” the spokesperson said. “We share our clients’ frustration that many of them have not yet received these much-needed payments due to IRS decisions, and we are actively working with the IRS to get stimulus payments sent directly to client accounts.”
In a new FAQ on the IRS website, the agency confirmed that, “In some cases, your Economic Impact Payment may have been directed to the bank account associated with the refund settlement product or prepaid debit card.”
Confusing matters even more, the agency said that there was an error on its Get My Payment website, which “inaccurately indicated rejected payments were being sent back to the same taxpayer account a second time.” In fact, those payments would be mailed to tax filers, the agency said.
Among the filers affected by this additional glitch were customers of MetaBank. The publicly traded South Dakota-based firm provides refund transfers for independent tax prep storefronts like Citi Tax in Augusta. The IRS wrongly sent about 300,000 payments to MetaBank’s temporary accounts, according to one of the bank’s tax prep partners. Many customers say they are still waiting for their stimulus money. The bank said in a statement it is “deeply concerned” by the delays and referred users to the IRS.
Citi Tax is typical of the industry in many ways. Refund transfers are most common in the South and particularly in counties with large black populations. Richmond County, where Citi Tax is located, is majority black and about a third of taxpayers there with income under $25,000 get a refund transfer, according to IRS data. The transfers tend to accompany returns involving the earned income tax credit, one of the country’s largest antipoverty programs and one primarily targeted at low-income workers with children. This helps explain why the crowd outside Citi Tax was largely women.
Citi Tax is also a prime example of an industry that is largely unregulated. The store used to be part of the Instant Tax chain — once the fourth-largest tax prep chain in the U.S. until it was shut down in 2013 for what a Justice Department attorney called “an astonishing array of repeated fraudulent and deceptive conduct.”
Under the same owner, Yonathan Michael, the Instant Tax location simply changed names and continued on. Michael himself has been hit with over $90,000 in penalties by the IRS, according to liens filed against him over the last three years. But the IRS lacks the authority to prevent Michael from continuing to prepare hundreds of returns each year simply because of such violations. Michael did not respond to questions from ProPublica.
Even after more than a week of confusion, many tax filers still do not have their checks and it’s unclear precisely which part of the system’s machinery broke down. On Reddit and Facebook, frustrated tax filers looking for answers have created groups like “justice for Metabank Customers” and “H&R Block stimulus group” that have ballooned in recent days.
Some people who wrote to ProPublica have been told to expect paper checks, despite their wish to get direct deposit. Others continue to get a payment status unknown message from the IRS website. And adding to the mess, the banks that process refund transfers are handling the problems differently. Some say they’ve sent payments back to the IRS, some say they will mail taxpayers checks themselves, and still others say they will send payments electronically.
Additionally, Santa Barbara Tax Products Group, a subsidiary of the publicly traded Green Dot Corporation, suggests on its website that fees may be taken out of stimulus payments in some cases.
“In the rare event that payments are inadvertently sent to [Santa Barbara], a plan is in place to help identify and expedite the return of these payments immediately to the IRS so that the IRS can reissue payments directly to affected taxpayers as soon as possible,” the statement says. “If we are unable to identify the payment as an Economic Impact Payment, the deposit will be processed as a federal refund, with all associated fees withheld from the deposit amount.”
Santa Barbara is the largest processor of refund transfers, handling them for several tax prep brands, including TurboTax. An Intuit spokesman said its customers would not be charged fees.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-23--How the Coronavirus Could Damage Social Security

The trustees for Social Security say the program ’ s long-term outlook for hasn ’ t changed much in the last year – but that ’ s ignoring any potential negative effects from the coronavirus .
The latest report from the Social Security trustees – officially called “ The 2020 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds ” – was released Wednesday .
Same as last year , the trustees calculated that the two Social Security trust funds are fully funded for another 14 years .
Separately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fund will be depleted in 2034 , while the Disability Insurance trust fund will last until 2065 .
Once the old-age trust fund is exhausted , the retirement program will be able to pay 76 % of scheduled benefits , while the disability program will be able to pay 92 % its benefits when its trust fund runs dry .
Over a longer time horizon – and assuming no changes are made on either the revenue or payment sides – the funding levels deteriorate .
Taking the two trust funds together , roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 25 years , 85 % over 50 years , and 82 % over 75 years .
The trustees also said that the Medicare trust fund for hospital care is fully funded until 2026 , the same as in last year ’ s analysis .
Coronavirus changes the picture : The trustees report comes with a warning : “ The projections and analysis in these reports do not reflect the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Social Security and Medicare programs .
Given the uncertainty associated with these impacts , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to adjust their estimates accurately at this time.
” A Trump administration official told The Wall Street Journal ’ s Kate Davidson that the pandemic will likely darken the outlook .
“ The actual status of the program in the near term is almost certainly somewhat less favorable than is presented in this year ’ s trustees ’ report , ” the official said .
“ It ’ s clear that employment , earned income and payroll-tax revenue will be significantly affected , and lower for at least a portion of 2020 than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for retirement , disability and survivors ’ benefits might increase costs.
” Nancy Altman , president of Social Security Works , agrees that the coronavirus crisis will change the outlook , but not by much .
“ Even with what ’ s going on in the economy now , with such a large reserve the benefits will keep being paid and continued through the 2030s , ” she told MarketWatch .
A new analysis from the Bipartisan Policy Center comes to a more pessimistic conclusion .
If the current recession is similar to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust fund could run dry by 2028 and the disability trust fund could be tapped by 2024 .
“ These projections reflect a substantial further deterioration in the finances of a program that was already facing a large mismatch between income and outlays , making the need for action by policy makers even more urgent , ” the BPC report says .

The trustees for Social Security say the program’s long-term outlook for hasn’t changed much in the last year – but that’s ignoring any potential negative effects from the coronavirus.
The latest report from the Social Security trustees – officially called “The 2020 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds” – was released Wednesday. Same as last year, the trustees calculated that the two Social Security trust funds are fully funded for another 14 years.
Separately, the Old-Age & Survivors Insurance trust fund will be depleted in 2034, while the Disability Insurance trust fund will last until 2065. Once the old-age trust fund is exhausted, the retirement program will be able to pay 76% of scheduled benefits, while the disability program will be able to pay 92% its benefits when its trust fund runs dry.
Over a longer time horizon – and assuming no changes are made on either the revenue or payment sides – the funding levels deteriorate. Taking the two trust funds together, roughly 91% of the costs are funded over 25 years, 85% over 50 years, and 82% over 75 years.
The trustees also said that the Medicare trust fund for hospital care is fully funded until 2026, the same as in last year’s analysis.
Coronavirus changes the picture: The trustees report comes with a warning: “The projections and analysis in these reports do not reflect the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Social Security and Medicare programs. Given the uncertainty associated with these impacts, the Trustees believe that it is not possible to adjust their estimates accurately at this time.”
A Trump administration official told The Wall Street Journal’s Kate Davidson that the pandemic will likely darken the outlook. “The actual status of the program in the near term is almost certainly somewhat less favorable than is presented in this year’s trustees’ report,” the official said. “It’s clear that employment, earned income and payroll-tax revenue will be significantly affected, and lower for at least a portion of 2020 than estimated for the report. Additional claims for retirement, disability and survivors’ benefits might increase costs.”
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, agrees that the coronavirus crisis will change the outlook, but not by much. “Even with what’s going on in the economy now, with such a large reserve the benefits will keep being paid and continued through the 2030s,” she told MarketWatch.
A new analysis from the Bipartisan Policy Center comes to a more pessimistic conclusion. If the current recession is similar to the downturn in 2007-2009, the retirement trust fund could run dry by 2028 and the disability trust fund could be tapped by 2024. “These projections reflect a substantial further deterioration in the finances of a program that was already facing a large mismatch between income and outlays, making the need for action by policy makers even more urgent,” the BPC report says.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-24--Pelosi's 'Expensive' Plan for More Coronvirus Aid

President Trump signed the $ 484 billion pandemic relief package into law on Friday , but even before the ink was dry lawmakers had already shifted their focus to the next phase of stimulus legislation as the U.S. coronavirus death toll climbed past 50,000 .
The new battle has begun : House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday that a fifth package would be ready before long — and , though she did not put a price tag on it , she reportedly said it will be “ expensive.
” Bloomberg News reports : “ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from her fellow Democrats that would expand the social safety net as well as provide $ 500 billion to struggling state and local governments.
” The total size of the stimulus package reportedly could run into the trillions .
Pelosi reportedly also warned that , despite Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s resistance to providing more money to state and local governments , “ there will not be a bill ” without such aid .
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer , meanwhile , said Friday that he is seeing “ more momentum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local governments .
“ [ McConnell ] is isolated .
Republican senators , Republican governors have denounced him , ” Schumer said in an interview with National Public Radio .
“ I hope McConnell comes to his senses , turns around and helps us get state and local .
But if he doesn ’ t , I think there will be the momentum to defeat him.
” What the White House wants in the coronavirus stimulus : Before we get to the details , we ’ ll point out this remarkable line from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palmer : “ You don ’ t have to pay much attention to what the president says about what he wants in this bill , since Congress and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin just got nearly $ 3 trillion in spending done without any meaningful engagement from him.
” That said , the administration is looking for three broad elements in the package , Sherman and Palmer report : “ some sort of infrastructure measure , a tax break of some variety and policies that would help bring manufacturing back from China .
Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House view aid to state and local governments as the leverage point to achieve their policy goals.
” But the grand plans for $ 2 trillion in infrastructure spending are reportedly seen as infeasible right now , leaving the White House focused on a smaller but potentially bipartisan plan to boost 5G cellular technology and broadband access .
And the administration ’ s idea for a payroll tax cut still faces stiff resistance in Congress .
On China , the White House reportedly is looking to bring the manufacturing of PPE , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States and may back tax breaks for companies that move toward that goal .
On the other hand , a big infrastructure package may not be dead yet .
“ If you ’ re spending another trillion dollars , unpaid for , Republicans would rather spend it on infrastructure than on direct aid to prop up states , ” a senior Senate GOP staffer told Reuters .
How quickly will Congress move ?
Pelosi reportedly told Democrats this week that the legislation is nearly done and she has said it must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters Thursday that the goal is to complete the package by May 4 and vote shortly after that .
But the Trump administration and congressional Republicans reportedly say they have weeks until serious negotiations start .
“ There is a risk that the effort to write a comprehensive rescue bill gets bogged down for months or falters given how far apart both parties are now as well as the increasingly bitter exchanges over what should come next and who will be to blame if the economy doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Laura Litvan , Erik Wasson , and Steven T. Dennis write .
But if the small business assistance Trump signed into law on Friday runs out in days , as many expect , any push for additional small business bailouts could give Pelosi fresh leverage to demand aid for states .

President Trump signed the $484 billion pandemic relief package into law on Friday, but even before the ink was dry lawmakers had already shifted their focus to the next phase of stimulus legislation as the U.S. coronavirus death toll climbed past 50,000.
The new battle has begun: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday that a fifth package would be ready before long — and, though she did not put a price tag on it, she reportedly said it will be “expensive.”
Bloomberg News reports: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is gathering a long and expensive wish list from her fellow Democrats that would expand the social safety net as well as provide $500 billion to struggling state and local governments.” The total size of the stimulus package reportedly could run into the trillions.
Pelosi reportedly also warned that, despite Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s resistance to providing more money to state and local governments, “there will not be a bill” without such aid. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, said Friday that he is seeing “more momentum” for providing assistance to state and local governments. “[McConnell] is isolated. Republican senators, Republican governors have denounced him,” Schumer said in an interview with National Public Radio. “I hope McConnell comes to his senses, turns around and helps us get state and local. But if he doesn’t, I think there will be the momentum to defeat him.”
What the White House wants in the coronavirus stimulus: Before we get to the details, we’ll point out this remarkable line from Politico’s Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer: “You don’t have to pay much attention to what the president says about what he wants in this bill, since Congress and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin just got nearly $3 trillion in spending done without any meaningful engagement from him.”
That said, the administration is looking for three broad elements in the package, Sherman and Palmer report: “some sort of infrastructure measure, a tax break of some variety and policies that would help bring manufacturing back from China. Republicans both on Capitol Hill and in the White House view aid to state and local governments as the leverage point to achieve their policy goals.”
But the grand plans for $2 trillion in infrastructure spending are reportedly seen as infeasible right now, leaving the White House focused on a smaller but potentially bipartisan plan to boost 5G cellular technology and broadband access. And the administration’s idea for a payroll tax cut still faces stiff resistance in Congress. On China, the White House reportedly is looking to bring the manufacturing of PPE, drugs and other critical infrastructure back to the United States and may back tax breaks for companies that move toward that goal.
On the other hand, a big infrastructure package may not be dead yet. “If you’re spending another trillion dollars, unpaid for, Republicans would rather spend it on infrastructure than on direct aid to prop up states,” a senior Senate GOP staffer told Reuters.
How quickly will Congress move? Pelosi reportedly told Democrats this week that the legislation is nearly done and she has said it must happen “as soon as possible.” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters Thursday that the goal is to complete the package by May 4 and vote shortly after that. But the Trump administration and congressional Republicans reportedly say they have weeks until serious negotiations start. “There is a risk that the effort to write a comprehensive rescue bill gets bogged down for months or falters given how far apart both parties are now as well as the increasingly bitter exchanges over what should come next and who will be to blame if the economy doesn’t rebound,” Bloomberg’s Laura Litvan, Erik Wasson, and Steven T. Dennis write.
But if the small business assistance Trump signed into law on Friday runs out in days, as many expect, any push for additional small business bailouts could give Pelosi fresh leverage to demand aid for states.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-27--Small Business Aid Program Swamped Again

Congress has authorized an additional $ 321 billion in emergency funding for the Paycheck Protection Program , which aims to keep workers on the payroll by providing grants and loans to companies with fewer than 500 employees , but the program has proved so popular that it can ’ t keep up with overwhelming demand .
The application process for the second round of the PPP opened for new applications at 10:30 Monday morning – and the Small Business Administration system crashed within just a few minutes .
“ It ’ s obvious the system is simply flooded right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lending officer at United Midwest Savings Bank in Columbus , Ohio , told The New York Times .
“ It ’ s been very stop and start , with no real way to know whether it is working other than to keep hitting the submit button.
” The first round of the program , which kicked off on April 3 , was marred by technical glitches and a lack of clear guidelines .
Even so , it ran through its initial $ 349 billion in funding in just 13 days , leaving millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cold amid complaints of favoritism toward larger and better-connected companies .

Congress has authorized an additional $321 billion in emergency funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, which aims to keep workers on the payroll by providing grants and loans to companies with fewer than 500 employees, but the program has proved so popular that it can’t keep up with overwhelming demand.
The application process for the second round of the PPP opened for new applications at 10:30 Monday morning – and the Small Business Administration system crashed within just a few minutes.
“It’s obvious the system is simply flooded right now,” Craig Street, the chief lending officer at United Midwest Savings Bank in Columbus, Ohio, told The New York Times. “It’s been very stop and start, with no real way to know whether it is working other than to keep hitting the submit button.”
The first round of the program, which kicked off on April 3, was marred by technical glitches and a lack of clear guidelines. Even so, it ran through its initial $349 billion in funding in just 13 days, leaving millions of small business owners out in the cold amid complaints of favoritism toward larger and better-connected companies.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-27--Supreme Court Rules That US Must Pay Insurers $12 Billion for Obamacare Losses

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Monday that a group of insurance companies is owed $ 12 billion under provisions of the Affordable Care Act .
The decision requires the government to make payments that were promised to insurers in the first years of the ACA but were held up by Congress amidst the political battle over Obamacare .
Writing for the majority , Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the decision is based on the basic idea that the “ Government should honor its obligations.
” The sole dissenting vote came from conservative Justice Samuel Alito , who said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing a massive bailout for insurance companies that took a calculated risk and lost.
” The background : To encourage private insurers to participate in Obamacare as it got off the ground in 2014 , the ACA established a “ risk corridor ” program designed to smooth out profits and losses for the first three years .
Health insurance providers that earned higher-than-expected profits would pay some of their gains to the government , while insurers that lost money because they set premiums too low would be compensated , thereby eliminating the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress successfully undermined the risk corridor program by attaching riders to appropriations bills from 2014 through 2016 that prevented the federal government from making payments to insurance companies .
Health insurers sued to recover the funds they said there were owed , resulting in the case , “ Maine Community Health Options v. United States , ” that was decided Monday .
What it means : The ruling is “ a vindication of the ACA 's original structure , ” says Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation .
Even so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to achieve one of their primary purposes .
“ It ’ s compensating insurers for money that they were supposed to get several years ago , ” Levitt told The New York Times .
“ If the money had been paid out when it was supposed to , it would have stabilized the A.C.A .
financially and politically.
” The ruling may also shed light on how the court will approach a separate case that represents a major threat to the Affordable Care Act , says Vox ’ s Ian Milhiser .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up California v. Texas , a lawsuit backed by the Trump administration that seeks to invalidate the health care law in its entirety .
“ If the justices approach the California case with the same wholly legal approach they took in the Maine Community case , ” says Milhiser , “ this latest attack on Obamacare will also be rejected by a lopsided vote .
”

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Monday that a group of insurance companies is owed $12 billion under provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The decision requires the government to make payments that were promised to insurers in the first years of the ACA but were held up by Congress amidst the political battle over Obamacare.
Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the decision is based on the basic idea that the “Government should honor its obligations.” The sole dissenting vote came from conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who said that the ruling “has the effect of providing a massive bailout for insurance companies that took a calculated risk and lost.”
The background: To encourage private insurers to participate in Obamacare as it got off the ground in 2014, the ACA established a “risk corridor” program designed to smooth out profits and losses for the first three years. Health insurance providers that earned higher-than-expected profits would pay some of their gains to the government, while insurers that lost money because they set premiums too low would be compensated, thereby eliminating the risk of large unforeseen losses.
But Republicans in Congress successfully undermined the risk corridor program by attaching riders to appropriations bills from 2014 through 2016 that prevented the federal government from making payments to insurance companies. Health insurers sued to recover the funds they said there were owed, resulting in the case, “Maine Community Health Options v. United States,” that was decided Monday.
What it means: The ruling is “a vindication of the ACA's original structure,” says Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Even so, the funds will be paid too late to achieve one of their primary purposes. “It’s compensating insurers for money that they were supposed to get several years ago,” Levitt told The New York Times. “If the money had been paid out when it was supposed to, it would have stabilized the A.C.A. financially and politically.”
The ruling may also shed light on how the court will approach a separate case that represents a major threat to the Affordable Care Act, says Vox’s Ian Milhiser. In the fall, the court will take up California v. Texas, a lawsuit backed by the Trump administration that seeks to invalidate the health care law in its entirety. “If the justices approach the California case with the same wholly legal approach they took in the Maine Community case,” says Milhiser, “this latest attack on Obamacare will also be rejected by a lopsided vote.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-27--Goldman Sachs Expects Another $550 Billion in Coronavirus Relief This Year

Goldman Sachs economists said in a note to clients Sunday that they now expect Congress will approve an additional $ 550 billion in fiscal support this calendar year , with about $ 400 billion coming before the fiscal year ends on September 30 .
Goldman also expects another $ 1 trillion in additional measures over the next two fiscal years .
Goldman had previously projected that Congress would approve another $ 500 billion in coronavirus relief this fiscal year .
That was before lawmakers passed another $ 484 billion package last week .
“ Since we still expect Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment benefits , and potentially do a number of other things , we are increasing the amount of fiscal support we assume in our forecast , ” Goldman economist Alec Phillips wrote .
Phillips noted that he and the Goldman team expect the enhanced unemployment benefits Congress provided through July will be extended through the end of the year but cut in half , from $ 600 a week to $ 300 .
“ The average regular benefit payment of $ 370/week is around 50 % of an average unemployed workers ’ prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total benefit payment from greater than 100 % of average earnings to a bit less than 100 % of average earnings , which might be necessary to ensure passage in light of last-minute opposition raised by some congressional Republicans shortly before the CARES Act passed in March , ” Phillips wrote .
Goldman also expects another round of direct stimulus payments to individuals , a modest boost of about $ 100 billion to infrastructure spending and about $ 200 billion in additional aid to fiscally strapped states , far lower than the $ @ @ @ @ @ @

Goldman Sachs economists said in a note to clients Sunday that they now expect Congress will approve an additional $550 billion in fiscal support this calendar year, with about $400 billion coming before the fiscal year ends on September 30. Goldman also expects another $1 trillion in additional measures over the next two fiscal years.
Goldman had previously projected that Congress would approve another $500 billion in coronavirus relief this fiscal year. That was before lawmakers passed another $484 billion package last week.
“Since we still expect Congress to provide fiscal aid to states, extend unemployment benefits, and potentially do a number of other things, we are increasing the amount of fiscal support we assume in our forecast,” Goldman economist Alec Phillips wrote.
Phillips noted that he and the Goldman team expect the enhanced unemployment benefits Congress provided through July will be extended through the end of the year but cut in half, from $600 a week to $300. “The average regular benefit payment of $370/week is around 50% of an average unemployed workers’ prior earnings, so this would take the total benefit payment from greater than 100% of average earnings to a bit less than 100% of average earnings, which might be necessary to ensure passage in light of last-minute opposition raised by some congressional Republicans shortly before the CARES Act passed in March,” Phillips wrote.
Goldman also expects another round of direct stimulus payments to individuals, a modest boost of about $100 billion to infrastructure spending and about $200 billion in additional aid to fiscally strapped states, far lower than the $500 billion governors have requested.


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-27--Is It Too Soon to Worry About the Deficit?

Congress has authorized some $ 3.6 trillion in federal spending and tax relief to combat the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic destruction — programs that will add about $ 2.5 trillion to the federal deficit .
More is likely coming , but any additional spending is already the subject of heated debate , raising fears that bailout fatigue and wariness surrounding additional deficit-funded stimulus measures might weaken the eventual recovery , inflicting prolonged economic pain on millions of American businesses and households — fears , in other words , that we may repeat mistakes some economists say were made after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The economic scarring if lots of businesses go bankrupt and households are wiped out financially in this episode would be a failure of policy , ” Karen Dynan , a Harvard economist and a former Treasury Department official , told The New York Times .
“ Based on the 2008 experience , a real concern is that we will tire of fiscal stimulus before the need for that money runs out.
” A political question : Democrats are looking to move quickly on the next phase of legislation and have reportedly begun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , are grappling with some internal divisions over additional spending , with some in the party calling for more aid while others seek to pull back .
Some in the GOP oppose additional help for Democratic states like California and Illinois that they say dug themselves into a hole before the pandemic hit , while a number of Republicans have expressed renewed concerns over the rising deficit and record national debt .
“ After years of pillorying the Obama administration over spending and blocking efforts to pump more money into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP leaders now find themselves struggling with how to balance the need to prop up the struggling economy ahead of the fall ’ s elections with concerns that too much spending could hurt them with their base of voters , ” The Washington Post ’ s Seung Min Kim wrote over the weekend .
The deficit debate is premature : Kim noted that “ economists from the right and left — as well as a not-insignificant number of GOP senators — are warning of the dangers of pulling back on federal spending too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create long-lasting problems for the economy and the American worker.
” Case in point : “ The pandemic response got off to a really promising start , with everyone coming together with a whatever-it-takes attitude , ” Jason Furman , who served as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama , told the Times .
“ But we ’ re slipping back into the types of gridlock , over-optimism about the economy and over-pessimism on the deficit that followed the financial crisis and unnecessarily prolonged the economic pain.
” Brian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative Manhattan Institute , told the Post that he ’ s been a “ deficit hawk economist for 20 years ” and that we ’ ll need significant deficit reforms as soon as the economy recovers , but now isn ’ t the time to pull back on spending .
“ You can ’ t begin to solve the debt crisis until they have solved the economic crisis , and that will take spending money in the short term , ” he said .
Vox ’ s Dylan Matthews argues that , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriate , it ’ s far too early in this crisis to even entertain discussion about an eventual pivot back to deficit reduction .
“ This is , to be frank , an outrageous time to give a [ bleep ] about the federal budget deficit , or about the debt ( the accumulated total of past deficits , plus interest ) .
The US in the very early stages of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression , and [ the ] true unemployment rate is likely around 15 to 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress ’ s stimulus measures to date have been helpful , but clearly inadequate in the face of the crisis before us .
The US needs investment on the scale of the New Deal or greater to meet this challenge , and worrying about deficits promises to strangle the recovery in the crib.
” A debate about the future of the GOP : The current deficit talk presages , or is part of , a broader GOP debate about the future of the party , Politico ’ s Ryan Lizza reports : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once defined conservatism have disappeared .
Instead , the most interesting debate is among Republican policymakers crafting large-scale programs to get government checks into the hands of economically disenfranchised people as quickly as possible.
” Lizza points to Republican Sens .
Marco Rubio of Florida and Josh Hawley of Missouri , who have pushed for a more populist approach to policy , one that is more accepting of government intervention .
“ Now the question is whether they represent the future of the GOP — the rising stars who will define the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply like firefighters called in for an emergency before the party defaults back to its traditional small-government worldview , ” Lizza writes .
The answer may be determined by the 2020 presidential election : Liberal Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman argues that most Republicans haven ’ t had their views changed by the pandemic .
“ And , ” he writes , “ they ’ ll be more than happy to begin deficit fearmongering as an excuse for austerity at the earliest opportunity — i.e.
, if there ’ s a Democrat in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
… Should Trump be reelected , all those who claim to be deeply concerned about the debt will say that we really should do something about it — but not quite yet , not when cutting spending or raising taxes might be too damaging to a Republican president .
”

Congress has authorized some $3.6 trillion in federal spending and tax relief to combat the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic destruction — programs that will add about $2.5 trillion to the federal deficit.
More is likely coming, but any additional spending is already the subject of heated debate, raising fears that bailout fatigue and wariness surrounding additional deficit-funded stimulus measures might weaken the eventual recovery, inflicting prolonged economic pain on millions of American businesses and households — fears, in other words, that we may repeat mistakes some economists say were made after the financial crisis a decade ago.
“The economic scarring if lots of businesses go bankrupt and households are wiped out financially in this episode would be a failure of policy,” Karen Dynan, a Harvard economist and a former Treasury Department official, told The New York Times. “Based on the 2008 experience, a real concern is that we will tire of fiscal stimulus before the need for that money runs out.”
A political question: Democrats are looking to move quickly on the next phase of legislation and have reportedly begun writing a new multitrillion-dollar bill. Republicans, though, are grappling with some internal divisions over additional spending, with some in the party calling for more aid while others seek to pull back. Some in the GOP oppose additional help for Democratic states like California and Illinois that they say dug themselves into a hole before the pandemic hit, while a number of Republicans have expressed renewed concerns over the rising deficit and record national debt.
“After years of pillorying the Obama administration over spending and blocking efforts to pump more money into the economy following the 2008 financial crisis, GOP leaders now find themselves struggling with how to balance the need to prop up the struggling economy ahead of the fall’s elections with concerns that too much spending could hurt them with their base of voters,” The Washington Post’s Seung Min Kim wrote over the weekend.
The deficit debate is premature: Kim noted that “economists from the right and left — as well as a not-insignificant number of GOP senators — are warning of the dangers of pulling back on federal spending too quickly, alarmed that doing so will create long-lasting problems for the economy and the American worker.”
Case in point: “The pandemic response got off to a really promising start, with everyone coming together with a whatever-it-takes attitude,” Jason Furman, who served as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama, told the Times. “But we’re slipping back into the types of gridlock, over-optimism about the economy and over-pessimism on the deficit that followed the financial crisis and unnecessarily prolonged the economic pain.”
Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, told the Post that he’s been a “deficit hawk economist for 20 years” and that we’ll need significant deficit reforms as soon as the economy recovers, but now isn’t the time to pull back on spending. “You can’t begin to solve the debt crisis until they have solved the economic crisis, and that will take spending money in the short term,” he said.
Vox’s Dylan Matthews argues that, while there are times when deficit concerns are appropriate, it’s far too early in this crisis to even entertain discussion about an eventual pivot back to deficit reduction.
“This is, to be frank, an outrageous time to give a [bleep] about the federal budget deficit, or about the debt (the accumulated total of past deficits, plus interest). The US in the very early stages of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and [the] true unemployment rate is likely around 15 to 20 percent,” he writes. “Congress’s stimulus measures to date have been helpful, but clearly inadequate in the face of the crisis before us. The US needs investment on the scale of the New Deal or greater to meet this challenge, and worrying about deficits promises to strangle the recovery in the crib.”
A debate about the future of the GOP: The current deficit talk presages, or is part of, a broader GOP debate about the future of the party, Politico’s Ryan Lizza reports: “In 2020, the economic libertarians who once defined conservatism have disappeared. Instead, the most interesting debate is among Republican policymakers crafting large-scale programs to get government checks into the hands of economically disenfranchised people as quickly as possible.”
Lizza points to Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Josh Hawley of Missouri, who have pushed for a more populist approach to policy, one that is more accepting of government intervention. “Now the question is whether they represent the future of the GOP — the rising stars who will define the party after Trump — or whether they are simply like firefighters called in for an emergency before the party defaults back to its traditional small-government worldview,” Lizza writes.
The answer may be determined by the 2020 presidential election: Liberal Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman argues that most Republicans haven’t had their views changed by the pandemic. “And,” he writes, “they’ll be more than happy to begin deficit fearmongering as an excuse for austerity at the earliest opportunity — i.e., if there’s a Democrat in the White House to suffer the consequences. … Should Trump be reelected, all those who claim to be deeply concerned about the debt will say that we really should do something about it — but not quite yet, not when cutting spending or raising taxes might be too damaging to a Republican president.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-04-29--Why Small Business Loans Aren’t Working for Independent Restaurants

Some independently owned restaurants are planning to return the loans they have received from the federal government due to concerns about the conditions the loan program imposes , the Financial Times reported Wednesday .
In order for loans provided by the $ 660 billion Paycheck Protection Program to be forgiven , small businesses are required to spend 75 % of the money they receive on payroll within eight weeks .
The remaining funds can be applied to overhead expenses including rent , but any money that is not used according to the guidelines must be repaid in two years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurants initially jumped on the PPP loans to help them get through a rough patch , but with many now closed and facing an uncertain future , the idea of taking on additional loans has lost its appeal .
As a result , many are likely to return the loans they received , says the National Restaurant Association .
“ It was a great idea in the beginning — but it turned out to be another loan which I don ’ t need , ” one Pennsylvania restaurant owner told the FT. “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The attraction to this was the forgiveness.
” Millions of jobs at stake : The restaurant industry employs an estimated 12 million people , and about 8 million of them are currently furloughed .
Congress designed the PPP in an effort to keep small business employees on the payroll , but the window for doing so is closing for many independently owned restaurants , which may have to remain either partially or fully closed for weeks more , if not longer .
As some restaurants rethink the PPP , some are hoping that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package designed specifically for the industry .
More of the money would need to be available for rent and other fixed expenses , the National Restaurant Association says , and the requirement to pay workers would have to be delayed until the restaurants fully reopen .

Some independently owned restaurants are planning to return the loans they have received from the federal government due to concerns about the conditions the loan program imposes, the Financial Times reported Wednesday.
In order for loans provided by the $660 billion Paycheck Protection Program to be forgiven, small businesses are required to spend 75% of the money they receive on payroll within eight weeks. The remaining funds can be applied to overhead expenses including rent, but any money that is not used according to the guidelines must be repaid in two years, with 1% interest.
Plenty of restaurants initially jumped on the PPP loans to help them get through a rough patch, but with many now closed and facing an uncertain future, the idea of taking on additional loans has lost its appeal. As a result, many are likely to return the loans they received, says the National Restaurant Association.
“It was a great idea in the beginning — but it turned out to be another loan which I don’t need,” one Pennsylvania restaurant owner told the FT. “I have plenty of loans already. The attraction to this was the forgiveness.”
Millions of jobs at stake: The restaurant industry employs an estimated 12 million people, and about 8 million of them are currently furloughed. Congress designed the PPP in an effort to keep small business employees on the payroll, but the window for doing so is closing for many independently owned restaurants, which may have to remain either partially or fully closed for weeks more, if not longer.
As some restaurants rethink the PPP, some are hoping that Congress can step in with an aid package designed specifically for the industry. More of the money would need to be available for rent and other fixed expenses, the National Restaurant Association says, and the requirement to pay workers would have to be delayed until the restaurants fully reopen.