thefiscaltimes--2020-09-15--Why Joe Biden Wants to Go Big on a Stimulus Package

Some Democratic economic policy wonks have long believed they made a serious mistake during the Great Recession : The $ 787 billion stimulus package President Barack Obama signed into law in 2009 just wasn ’ t big enough relative to the size of the crisis at hand .
According to Politico ’ s Ben White , former Vice President Joe Biden is determined not to make the same mistake twice .
“ Should Biden take the White House and get a Democratic Senate , ” White said Tuesday , “ it will likely all translate into an immediate push to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate tax cuts , slap significantly higher taxes on wealthy Americans and push through a multitrillion-dollar stimulus spending package aimed at fighting the Covid-19 virus , sending cash directly into people ’ s pockets , renewing enhanced unemployment benefits , rescuing struggling state budgets and investing in new infrastructure projects.
” One reason for Biden ’ s change in perspective , White says , is the influence of a team of economic advisers — including Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) and economists Heather Boushey , Raj Chetty and Jared Bernstein — who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party , and who are less concerned with “ appeasing budget hawks and Wall Street bankers who tend to worry about soaring deficits.
” Additionally , some of the key centrist advisers from the Obama administration Biden has been consulting , such as former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers , have moved left in recent years , adding weight to more progressive policy proposals .
A major concern for the Biden team is the possibility that , without substantial further stimulus , the economy will get stuck in low gear and perform below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that without more aid , state and local governments will serve as a drag , much as they did after the Great Recession , as they maintain austerity budgets that hinder the recovery .
How big is big ?
Biden hasn ’ t released a detailed proposal for a stimulus package , saying much depends on what kind of deal Congress can make in the coming weeks and what happens with the economy between now and January .
But he said earlier this year that the stimulus should be “ a hell of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 trillion Cares Act Congress passed in March .
Separately , Biden has proposed more than $ 3 trillion in new spending on a variety of programs , including clean energy , infrastructure and education , and those could conceivably be folded into an eventual stimulus package .
Debt less of a concern .
The Obama administration ’ s undersized stimulus package was driven in part by concerns about running up the national debt , and by fears about sparking a political war with conservatives over spending levels .
But a growing chorus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those centrist concerns , and they appear to have Biden ’ s ear , at least at the moment .
“ The idea that the U.S. faces any major risk from our debt burden is simply wrong , ” Dean Baker of the progressive Center for Economic Policy and Research told White .
“ If for some reason private investors became more reluctant to hold U.S. debt , the Fed could simply step in and buy it .
If the U.S. is struggling to recover from this recession , there is no reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

Some Democratic economic policy wonks have long believed they made a serious mistake during the Great Recession: The $787 billion stimulus package President Barack Obama signed into law in 2009 just wasn’t big enough relative to the size of the crisis at hand. According to Politico’s Ben White, former Vice President Joe Biden is determined not to make the same mistake twice.
“Should Biden take the White House and get a Democratic Senate,” White said Tuesday, “it will likely all translate into an immediate push to roll back President Donald Trump’s corporate tax cuts, slap significantly higher taxes on wealthy Americans and push through a multitrillion-dollar stimulus spending package aimed at fighting the Covid-19 virus, sending cash directly into people’s pockets, renewing enhanced unemployment benefits, rescuing struggling state budgets and investing in new infrastructure projects.”
One reason for Biden’s change in perspective, White says, is the influence of a team of economic advisers — including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and economists Heather Boushey, Raj Chetty and Jared Bernstein — who come from the left wing of the Democratic Party, and who are less concerned with “appeasing budget hawks and Wall Street bankers who tend to worry about soaring deficits.” Additionally, some of the key centrist advisers from the Obama administration Biden has been consulting, such as former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, have moved left in recent years, adding weight to more progressive policy proposals.
A major concern for the Biden team is the possibility that, without substantial further stimulus, the economy will get stuck in low gear and perform below potential for years. Another worry is that without more aid, state and local governments will serve as a drag, much as they did after the Great Recession, as they maintain austerity budgets that hinder the recovery.
How big is big? Biden hasn’t released a detailed proposal for a stimulus package, saying much depends on what kind of deal Congress can make in the coming weeks and what happens with the economy between now and January. But he said earlier this year that the stimulus should be “a hell of a lot bigger” than the $2 trillion Cares Act Congress passed in March. Separately, Biden has proposed more than $3 trillion in new spending on a variety of programs, including clean energy, infrastructure and education, and those could conceivably be folded into an eventual stimulus package.
Debt less of a concern. The Obama administration’s undersized stimulus package was driven in part by concerns about running up the national debt, and by fears about sparking a political war with conservatives over spending levels. But a growing chorus of debt skeptics has pushed back against those centrist concerns, and they appear to have Biden’s ear, at least at the moment.
“The idea that the U.S. faces any major risk from our debt burden is simply wrong,” Dean Baker of the progressive Center for Economic Policy and Research told White. “If for some reason private investors became more reluctant to hold U.S. debt, the Fed could simply step in and buy it. If the U.S. is struggling to recover from this recession, there is no reason to be concerned about running large deficits.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-14--Biden’s Tax Plan: Who Really Would Pay More?

Joe Biden ’ s tax plan would have high earners paying significantly more , with the top 1 % of households shouldering 80 % of the increase while those earning less than $ 400 would see no change on average , according to a new analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model .
The basics of Biden ’ s proposals : Biden ’ s tax plan calls for repealing elements of the 2017 Republican tax law , including restoring the top income tax rate to 39.6 % , where it was before the new law cut it to 37 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax rate from 21 % to 28 % , subject earnings over $ 400,000 to the Social Security payroll tax and treat capital gains and dividends the same as earned income , among other proposals .
Who gets hit : Under Biden ’ s plan , the effective tax rate on the top 0.1 % of earners — those now making roughly $ 3.3 million a year or more — would rise by 12.4 percentage points to 43 % , the Penn Wharton model says .
Households earning more than $ 400,000 would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % on average , compared to a 0.9 % decrease for those earning $ 400,000 or less .
The drop for the latter group is not due to direct tax increases but is the result of lower investment returns and wages projected under the Pen Wharton model as a consequence of Biden ’ s corporate tax hike .
“ Relative to current law , the Biden plan leaves the income and payroll taxes of almost all households below the 95th percentile of income unchanged , ” the analysis says .
The big picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden ’ s policy plans would raise $ 3.375 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years , the Penn Wharton model finds .
Biden ’ s corporate tax increase is the biggest revenue raiser , projected to generate more than $ 1.4 trillion over 10 years , followed by his payroll tax plan ( $ 992.8 billion ) and individual income tax plan ( $ 944 billion ) .
Biden ’ s platform would also increase spending by $ 5.35 trillion , the report says .
The largest areas of new spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 10 years ) and infrastructure ( $ 1.6 trillion ) .
Factoring in the macroeconomic and health effects of Biden ’ s platform , the report projects that by 2050 , federal debt would decrease by 6.1 % and gross domestic product would rise by 0.8 % relative to current law .
Big spending increases : As The Wall Street Journal ’ s Jacob M. Schlesinger and Eliza Collins note , Biden ’ s proposed budget is more than double what Hillary Clinton proposed as the 2016 Democratic nominee .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a presidential nominee since George McGovern ” in 1972 , Penn Wharton Budget Model ’ s Kent Smetters told the Journal .
Schlesinger and Collins provide some additional context : “ If fully enacted , the Biden plan would mean federal spending would equal nearly a quarter of all economic activity in the U.S. That is up from 21 % in 2019 , but well below the jump to 30 % this year amid the pandemic , ” they write .
“ It is also below the level of government spending in most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far short of the social democracies of Europe , where the public sector in many countries equals roughly half of GDP.
” Biden aides also tell the Journal that he is committed to avoiding a continued expansion of the national debt , pointing to that as an area of contrast with President Trump .
At the same time , Biden ’ s camp “ has left itself wiggle room , by saying that their commitment to paying for new spending only covers plans they consider permanent , and needn ’ t apply to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Schlesinger and Collins report .
“ Aides also say that some big-spending proposals—such as fixing crumbling infrastructure—are intended to last only a few years , and wouldn ’ t expand the budget over the long run.
” The bottom line : The Penn Wharton Budget Model ’ s numbers refute a key Trump attack line against Biden while pointing up the differences between the two candidates on taxes .
“ The Trump campaign has run ads saying Biden ’ s increases would crush middle-class families , but the data show there would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than $ 400,000 , ” Laura Davison of Bloomberg News writes .
“ Trump has said he wants to cut taxes again , but hasn ’ t released a plan on how he would do that.
” You can dig into the details of Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis here .

Joe Biden’s tax plan would have high earners paying significantly more, with the top 1% of households shouldering 80% of the increase while those earning less than $400 would see no change on average, according to a new analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
The basics of Biden’s proposals: Biden’s tax plan calls for repealing elements of the 2017 Republican tax law, including restoring the top income tax rate to 39.6%, where it was before the new law cut it to 37%. Biden would also raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, subject earnings over $400,000 to the Social Security payroll tax and treat capital gains and dividends the same as earned income, among other proposals.
Who gets hit: Under Biden’s plan, the effective tax rate on the top 0.1% of earners — those now making roughly $3.3 million a year or more — would rise by 12.4 percentage points to 43%, the Penn Wharton model says. Households earning more than $400,000 would see their after-tax incomes decrease by 17.7% on average, compared to a 0.9% decrease for those earning $400,000 or less.
The drop for the latter group is not due to direct tax increases but is the result of lower investment returns and wages projected under the Pen Wharton model as a consequence of Biden’s corporate tax hike. “Relative to current law, the Biden plan leaves the income and payroll taxes of almost all households below the 95th percentile of income unchanged,” the analysis says.
The big picture for the federal budget: In all, Biden’s policy plans would raise $3.375 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years, the Penn Wharton model finds. Biden’s corporate tax increase is the biggest revenue raiser, projected to generate more than $1.4 trillion over 10 years, followed by his payroll tax plan ($992.8 billion) and individual income tax plan ($944 billion).
Biden’s platform would also increase spending by $5.35 trillion, the report says. The largest areas of new spending would be education ($1.9 trillion over 10 years) and infrastructure ($1.6 trillion). Factoring in the macroeconomic and health effects of Biden’s platform, the report projects that by 2050, federal debt would decrease by 6.1% and gross domestic product would rise by 0.8% relative to current law.
Big spending increases: As The Wall Street Journal’s Jacob M. Schlesinger and Eliza Collins note, Biden’s proposed budget is more than double what Hillary Clinton proposed as the 2016 Democratic nominee. “This is the largest proposed spending increase by a presidential nominee since George McGovern” in 1972, Penn Wharton Budget Model’s Kent Smetters told the Journal.
Schlesinger and Collins provide some additional context: “If fully enacted, the Biden plan would mean federal spending would equal nearly a quarter of all economic activity in the U.S. That is up from 21% in 2019, but well below the jump to 30% this year amid the pandemic,” they write. “It is also below the level of government spending in most of the world’s developed countries—and far short of the social democracies of Europe, where the public sector in many countries equals roughly half of GDP.”
Biden aides also tell the Journal that he is committed to avoiding a continued expansion of the national debt, pointing to that as an area of contrast with President Trump. At the same time, Biden’s camp “has left itself wiggle room, by saying that their commitment to paying for new spending only covers plans they consider permanent, and needn’t apply to short-term stimulus to counter the recession,” Schlesinger and Collins report. “Aides also say that some big-spending proposals—such as fixing crumbling infrastructure—are intended to last only a few years, and wouldn’t expand the budget over the long run.”
The bottom line: The Penn Wharton Budget Model’s numbers refute a key Trump attack line against Biden while pointing up the differences between the two candidates on taxes. “The Trump campaign has run ads saying Biden’s increases would crush middle-class families, but the data show there would be little effect for most who earn less than $400,000,” Laura Davison of Bloomberg News writes. “Trump has said he wants to cut taxes again, but hasn’t released a plan on how he would do that.”
You can dig into the details of Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis here.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-11--US Debt Costs Falling Even as Borrowing Soars

Interest costs on the national debt have fallen about 10 % this fiscal year , even as the amount of debt issued by the U.S. Treasury has hit record levels , Bloomberg reported Friday .
And over the next few years , the cost of servicing the debt held by the public – which now totals more than $ 20 trillion – will be cheaper relative to the size of the economy than any time since the early 1970s , according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office .
The reason is simple , Bloomberg ’ s Liz McCormick and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic , despite the record supply of debt , and are expected to remain low for years to come .
A focus on net cost .
The federal budget deficit is expected to total $ 3.3 trillion this fiscal year , more than three times larger than the year before , but the average interest rate on U.S. debt has fallen from 2.4 % to 1.7 % , and it ’ s expected to continue to fall .
“ While there ’ s been a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t caused the problems that were anticipated by the doomsters , ” Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research told Bloomberg .
“ It ’ s not just a question of how much debt is outstanding , but what is the cost to service that debt.
” Room for more ?
The falling cost of the growing debt suggests that the U.S. will be able to issue more debt at low cost in response to the coronavirus crisis , should policymakers see the need to do so .
“ The U.S. ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stretched by any means , ” Felipe Villarroel of TwentyFour Asset Management in London said .
“ We also look at what is the perceived use of the money a government is borrowing , which is now widely accepted as necessary.
” ‘ Bond vigilantes ’ vanquished .
Yardeni , who is credited with coining the term “ bond vigilantes ” 40 years ago to describe the investors who would supposedly pressure governments to limit their debt issuance by demanding higher interest payments , says conditions have changed .
The Federal Reserve is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980s investors , purchasing trillions of dollars ’ worth of government debt to keep interest rates near record lows .
“ If there were some bond vigilantes still out there to push the bond yields higher , then the Fed will target the bond yields , ” Yardeni said .
What if rates rise ?
Plenty of policymakers and investors are worried about what happens if and when interest rates start rising , perhaps on the heels of surging inflation .
“ The Fed is greasing the system to make sure the financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gary Pollack of Deutsche Bank .
“ But at some point in time the world will look different , and all of a sudden we are going to be stuck with a huge bill.
” Still , most economists say the current need for relief and stimulus outweighs any long-term concerns about the cost of the debt – with low interest rates making the decision that much easier .
Writing at The Washington Post Friday , former Treasury chiefs Robert E. Rubin and Jacob J. Lew said that although they “ share a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt , ” the coronavirus crisis calls for more federal spending .
“ [ W ] ith a pandemic raging amid an ongoing , deep recession , this isn ’ t the time to let deficits stand in the way of adequately addressing the crisis and the great need it has created , ” they said .

Interest costs on the national debt have fallen about 10% this fiscal year, even as the amount of debt issued by the U.S. Treasury has hit record levels, Bloomberg reported Friday. And over the next few years, the cost of servicing the debt held by the public – which now totals more than $20 trillion – will be cheaper relative to the size of the economy than any time since the early 1970s, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office.
The reason is simple, Bloomberg’s Liz McCormick and Alexandre Tanzi say: interest rates plunged in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, despite the record supply of debt, and are expected to remain low for years to come.
A focus on net cost. The federal budget deficit is expected to total $3.3 trillion this fiscal year, more than three times larger than the year before, but the average interest rate on U.S. debt has fallen from 2.4% to 1.7%, and it’s expected to continue to fall.
“While there’s been a lot of concern about the mounting debt, it hasn’t caused the problems that were anticipated by the doomsters,” Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research told Bloomberg. “It’s not just a question of how much debt is outstanding, but what is the cost to service that debt.”
Room for more? The falling cost of the growing debt suggests that the U.S. will be able to issue more debt at low cost in response to the coronavirus crisis, should policymakers see the need to do so. “The U.S.’s debt affordability is quite OK, not stretched by any means,” Felipe Villarroel of TwentyFour Asset Management in London said. “We also look at what is the perceived use of the money a government is borrowing, which is now widely accepted as necessary.”
‘Bond vigilantes’ vanquished. Yardeni, who is credited with coining the term “bond vigilantes” 40 years ago to describe the investors who would supposedly pressure governments to limit their debt issuance by demanding higher interest payments, says conditions have changed. The Federal Reserve is now playing the opposite role of the 1980s investors, purchasing trillions of dollars’ worth of government debt to keep interest rates near record lows.
“If there were some bond vigilantes still out there to push the bond yields higher, then the Fed will target the bond yields,” Yardeni said.
What if rates rise? Plenty of policymakers and investors are worried about what happens if and when interest rates start rising, perhaps on the heels of surging inflation. “The Fed is greasing the system to make sure the financial markets are functioning well,” said Gary Pollack of Deutsche Bank. “But at some point in time the world will look different, and all of a sudden we are going to be stuck with a huge bill.”
Still, most economists say the current need for relief and stimulus outweighs any long-term concerns about the cost of the debt – with low interest rates making the decision that much easier. Writing at The Washington Post Friday, former Treasury chiefs Robert E. Rubin and Jacob J. Lew said that although they “share a history of concern about rising deficits and debt,” the coronavirus crisis calls for more federal spending. “[W]ith a pandemic raging amid an ongoing, deep recession, this isn’t the time to let deficits stand in the way of adequately addressing the crisis and the great need it has created,” they said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-11--Trump’s Payroll Tax Plan Fizzles

Trump’s Payroll Tax Plan Fizzles

The plan , meant to boost workers ’ incomes by allowing their employers to postpone collection of the 6.2 % employee share of the tax funding Social Security , took effect at the beginning of the month .
So far , though , big employers are rejecting the idea , concerned about the complexity of administering a temporary deferral and about having to pay back the uncollected taxes next year .
“ More than a month after Mr. Trump signed an executive memorandum to defer the collection of the payroll taxes that workers pay to help fund Social Security , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trade groups and tax experts say they know of no large corporations that plan to stop withholding employees ’ payroll taxes this fall .
As a result , economic policy experts now say they expect the deferral to have little to no effect on economic growth this year.
” Small businesses and even some Republican-run states are balking at Trump ’ s tax deferral , too .
And Bloomberg News 's Laura Davison and Steve Matthews add : “ Even the House of Representatives isn ’ t going ahead , concluding it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests ’ of employees .
The Senate ’ s still mulling it over .
That largely leaves the federal government largely on its own in proceeding , with its workers.
” No trust in Trump : As The Washington Post ’ s Aaron Blake notes , those decisions to not participate in the deferral come even as Trump has repeatedly pledged to have the deferred taxes forgiven if he ’ s reelected .
“ The reaction shows how little confidence American businesses — and even some red states — have in Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There ’ s very little reason not to defer the taxes if you think they ’ ll be forgiven at a later date.
” “ When we win I , as your President , will totally forgive ALL deferred payroll taxes with money from the General Fund .
I will ALWAYS protect Seniors and your Social Security !
Sleepy Joe Biden will do the opposite , he will raise your taxes and DESTROY our Country !
” Trump ’ s tweet is problematic in a number of ways .
First , forgiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making it less likely .
Second , the idea of transferring money from the Treasury Department ’ s general fund — “ America ’ s checkbook , ” as the Treasury Department website calls it — and of “ terminating ” the payroll tax completely , as Trump has indicated he would do , would at the very least raise some serious questions about Social Security ’ s funding and future as well as the federal budget deficit .
Democrats and Social Security advocates warn that Trump ’ s promise to pursue the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ending Social Security — a charge that fact-checkers have said is partly false or mostly false .
Putting Social Security in play ?
Still , Trump ’ s plan , or lack of one , does represent some risk .
“ Trump , in effect , has proposed a dramatic restructuring of how Social Security is financed by not relying on the payroll tax as a dedicated source , but instead by tapping the general fund , ” Josh Boak of the Associated Press wrote last month .
“ The risk is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source could destabilize an anti-poverty program that provides payments to roughly 65 million Americans .
It also could force people to cut back on the spending that drives growth so they can save for their own retirement and health care needs if they believe the government backstop is in jeopardy.
” The problem is that Trump has essentially pledged to protect Social Security while getting rid of the taxes that fund it , without providing a clear and realistic source of alternate funding .
“ Over a 10-year period , Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hole in a U.S. budget that is already laden with rising debt loads , ” Boak reported .
When Trump was asked last month how the general fund could cover the costs of Social Security when the government was already incurring large deficits , he said , “ We ’ re going to have tremendous growth.
” But the kind of extraordinary growth needed to offset the loss of payroll tax revenues isn ’ t likely .
That brings us back to the economy : With Congress having failed to pass another coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the payroll tax deferral , economists warn that household incomes could take a hit , slowing the economic recovery .
“ Without additional fiscal support in the next few weeks , ” Mark Zandi , chief economist at Moody ’ s Analytics , told Bloomberg , “ odds that the economy will backslide in the fourth quarter are well over even .
”

President Trump’s payroll tax deferral plan is fizzling.
The plan, meant to boost workers’ incomes by allowing their employers to postpone collection of the 6.2% employee share of the tax funding Social Security, took effect at the beginning of the month. So far, though, big employers are rejecting the idea, concerned about the complexity of administering a temporary deferral and about having to pay back the uncollected taxes next year.
The New York Times’s Jim Tankersley reports:
“More than a month after Mr. Trump signed an executive memorandum to defer the collection of the payroll taxes that workers pay to help fund Social Security, few companies or people are taking part. Trade groups and tax experts say they know of no large corporations that plan to stop withholding employees’ payroll taxes this fall. As a result, economic policy experts now say they expect the deferral to have little to no effect on economic growth this year.”
Small businesses and even some Republican-run states are balking at Trump’s tax deferral, too. And Bloomberg News's Laura Davison and Steve Matthews add:
“Even the House of Representatives isn’t going ahead, concluding it ‘would not be in the best interests’ of employees. The Senate’s still mulling it over. That largely leaves the federal government largely on its own in proceeding, with its workers.”
No trust in Trump: As The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake notes, those decisions to not participate in the deferral come even as Trump has repeatedly pledged to have the deferred taxes forgiven if he’s reelected. “The reaction shows how little confidence American businesses — and even some red states — have in Trump’s promise,” Blake writes. “There’s very little reason not to defer the taxes if you think they’ll be forgiven at a later date.”
Trump reiterated his promise in a tweet Thursday night:
“When we win I, as your President, will totally forgive ALL deferred payroll taxes with money from the General Fund. I will ALWAYS protect Seniors and your Social Security! Sleepy Joe Biden will do the opposite, he will raise your taxes and DESTROY our Country!”
Trump’s tweet is problematic in a number of ways. First, forgiving the taxes would require congressional action, making it less likely. Second, the idea of transferring money from the Treasury Department’s general fund — “America’s checkbook,” as the Treasury Department website calls it — and of “terminating” the payroll tax completely, as Trump has indicated he would do, would at the very least raise some serious questions about Social Security’s funding and future as well as the federal budget deficit.
Democrats and Social Security advocates warn that Trump’s promise to pursue the elimination of the payroll tax is tantamount to ending Social Security — a charge that fact-checkers have said is partly false or mostly false.
Putting Social Security in play? Still, Trump’s plan, or lack of one, does represent some risk. “Trump, in effect, has proposed a dramatic restructuring of how Social Security is financed by not relying on the payroll tax as a dedicated source, but instead by tapping the general fund,” Josh Boak of the Associated Press wrote last month. “The risk is that the loss of a dedicated funding source could destabilize an anti-poverty program that provides payments to roughly 65 million Americans. It also could force people to cut back on the spending that drives growth so they can save for their own retirement and health care needs if they believe the government backstop is in jeopardy.”
The problem is that Trump has essentially pledged to protect Social Security while getting rid of the taxes that fund it, without providing a clear and realistic source of alternate funding. “Over a 10-year period, Trump’s idea would blow a $16.1 trillion hole in a U.S. budget that is already laden with rising debt loads,” Boak reported. When Trump was asked last month how the general fund could cover the costs of Social Security when the government was already incurring large deficits, he said, “We’re going to have tremendous growth.” But the kind of extraordinary growth needed to offset the loss of payroll tax revenues isn’t likely.
That brings us back to the economy: With Congress having failed to pass another coronavirus relief package and companies declining to implement the payroll tax deferral, economists warn that household incomes could take a hit, slowing the economic recovery. “Without additional fiscal support in the next few weeks,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told Bloomberg, “odds that the economy will backslide in the fourth quarter are well over even.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-10--Medicare Chief Spent Millions in Taxpayer Funds to Boost ‘Personal Brand’

Seema Verma , who runs the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the Trump administration , spent more than $ 3.5 million in public funds on outside consultants who worked to “ boost her public profile and promote her personal brand , ” according to a congressional investigative report released Thursday .
Investigators found that in her first two years in office Verma used CMS funds to retain consultants “ with strong ties to Republican political circles ” who arranged media appearances , handled communications and scheduled private meetings , including a “ Girl ’ s Night ” party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bureau Chief Susan Page that cost taxpayers nearly $ 3,000 .
The consultants charged up to $ 380 an hour for their public relations work , and some claimed travel expenses of more than $ 500 per day , far above the limits set for federal employees .
Other eyebrow-raising spending cited by investigators includes $ 1,700 for arranging lunches for Verma with individuals associated with Fox News , the Washington Examiner and AARP ; $ 977 to place an op-ed written by Verma on Fox News ; and $ 13,000 to place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Washingtonian magazine 's `` Most Powerful Women in Washington.
” A group of Democratic lawmakers released a statement Thursday calling on Verma to pay the money back .
“ Our investigation found that Administrator Verma misused funds appropriated by Congress and wasted taxpayer dollars intended to support critical federal health care programs , ” they said .
“ Congress did not intend for taxpayer dollars to be spent on handpicked communications consultants used to promote Administrator Verma ’ s public profile and personal brand .
Administrator Verma has shown reckless disregard for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe she should personally reimburse the taxpayers for these inappropriate expenditures.
” This is not the first time critics have raised questions about Verma ’ s use of taxpayer funds .
Last year , Politico reported that Verma had filed a request to be reimbursed at public expense for the loss of items stolen from her luggage during a work-related trip .
The value of the stolen items totaled $ 47,000 and included Ivanka Trump-branded jewelry worth nearly $ 6,000 .
Get more details on the Verma investigation at Politico .

Seema Verma, who runs the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the Trump administration, spent more than $3.5 million in public funds on outside consultants who worked to “boost her public profile and promote her personal brand,” according to a congressional investigative report released Thursday.
Investigators found that in her first two years in office Verma used CMS funds to retain consultants “with strong ties to Republican political circles” who arranged media appearances, handled communications and scheduled private meetings, including a “Girl’s Night” party at the house of USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page that cost taxpayers nearly $3,000.
The consultants charged up to $380 an hour for their public relations work, and some claimed travel expenses of more than $500 per day, far above the limits set for federal employees. Other eyebrow-raising spending cited by investigators includes $1,700 for arranging lunches for Verma with individuals associated with Fox News, the Washington Examiner and AARP; $977 to place an op-ed written by Verma on Fox News; and $13,000 to place Verma on panels and contend for awards like Washingtonian magazine's "Most Powerful Women in Washington.”
A group of Democratic lawmakers released a statement Thursday calling on Verma to pay the money back. “Our investigation found that Administrator Verma misused funds appropriated by Congress and wasted taxpayer dollars intended to support critical federal health care programs,” they said. “Congress did not intend for taxpayer dollars to be spent on handpicked communications consultants used to promote Administrator Verma’s public profile and personal brand. Administrator Verma has shown reckless disregard for the public’s trust. We believe she should personally reimburse the taxpayers for these inappropriate expenditures.”
This is not the first time critics have raised questions about Verma’s use of taxpayer funds. Last year, Politico reported that Verma had filed a request to be reimbursed at public expense for the loss of items stolen from her luggage during a work-related trip. The value of the stolen items totaled $47,000 and included Ivanka Trump-branded jewelry worth nearly $6,000.
Get more details on the Verma investigation at Politico.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-18--Massive Corporate Tax Holiday Could Cause Headaches Next Year

Worried about getting stuck with unpaid tax bills in 2021 , private employers have largely passed on President Trump ’ s voluntary program that allows companies to defer the Social Security portion of employee payroll taxes until the end of the year .
But an earlier rule change that allows companies to defer the employer portion of both Social Security and Medicare taxes has proven more popular .
Some analysts , though , are starting to worry about what happens when those taxes come due over the next two years .
The collective bill will be substantial .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payroll taxes could total $ 211 billion this year .
“ While this may be good for a short-term cash flow , it may backfire , ” tax attorney Cameron Hess a told Bloomberg .
The program could leave employers “ under an even more serious financial crisis , with obligations owing to the U.S. Treasury.
” For the most part , analysts say the liquidity provided by the tax deferral – United Parcel Service saved $ 370 in the second quarter , for example , while Lowe ’ s saved $ 251 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it did in the middle of the worst of the pandemic shutdowns , even though there may be some pain down the line .
“ Things would be drastically different if we hadn ’ t had the flood of liquidity in the system from the CARES Act , ” Mark Mazur of the Tax Policy Center said .
“ On balance , it has been more positive than negative .
But there are going to be unintended consequences that we haven ’ t even anticipated .
”

Worried about getting stuck with unpaid tax bills in 2021, private employers have largely passed on President Trump’s voluntary program that allows companies to defer the Social Security portion of employee payroll taxes until the end of the year. But an earlier rule change that allows companies to defer the employer portion of both Social Security and Medicare taxes has proven more popular. Some analysts, though, are starting to worry about what happens when those taxes come due over the next two years.
The collective bill will be substantial. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, unpaid payroll taxes could total $211 billion this year.
“While this may be good for a short-term cash flow, it may backfire,” tax attorney Cameron Hess a told Bloomberg. The program could leave employers “under an even more serious financial crisis, with obligations owing to the U.S. Treasury.”
For the most part, analysts say the liquidity provided by the tax deferral – United Parcel Service saved $370 in the second quarter, for example, while Lowe’s saved $251 million – was worth it, coming as it did in the middle of the worst of the pandemic shutdowns, even though there may be some pain down the line.
“Things would be drastically different if we hadn’t had the flood of liquidity in the system from the CARES Act,” Mark Mazur of the Tax Policy Center said. “On balance, it has been more positive than negative. But there are going to be unintended consequences that we haven’t even anticipated.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-17--Congress Still Doesn’t Have a Deal on Stopgap Spending Bill

Congress has just two major items on its agenda before the November elections : That stalled coronavirus relief deal and a must-pass stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown after September .
If the first was going nowhere , lawmakers at least seemed certain to take care of the second .
That ’ s still probably true , as neither party wants a shutdown just before voters cast their ballots .
Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said earlier this month that they had agreed to hash out a short-term funding bill .
But the plan to pass a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that simply extends funding at current levels , without too many additional provisions — is starting to get a bit messy .
“ Despite the best efforts of top Capitol Hill and White House officials , drama is creeping back into negotiations over the stopgap spending bill needed to avert a partial government shutdown Oct. 1 .
“ There 's no agreement on how long the continuing resolution will extend current funding levels , for starters , while tricky policy issues like upcoming redistricting-related census deadlines remain unresolved .
“ What 's more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rank-and-file House Democrats about withholding their votes on the CR unless coronavirus relief provisions are attached , despite a White House-leadership deal to keep the two issues separate.
” Republicans reportedly want to THE temporary spending bill to last until mid-December , while Democrats want to push the next deadline to early next year .
The negotiators have reportedly given themselves until Friday to reach a deal .
`` We hope we can reach a bipartisan , bicameral deal by tomorrow ’ s noon deadline , '' Evan Hollander , spokesman for House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Roll Call .
The House is expected to take up the spending bill next week .

Congress has just two major items on its agenda before the November elections: That stalled coronavirus relief deal and a must-pass stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown after September. If the first was going nowhere, lawmakers at least seemed certain to take care of the second.
That’s still probably true, as neither party wants a shutdown just before voters cast their ballots. Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said earlier this month that they had agreed to hash out a short-term funding bill. But the plan to pass a “clean” continuing resolution — one that simply extends funding at current levels, without too many additional provisions — is starting to get a bit messy.
Roll Call’s Jennifer Shutt reports:
“Despite the best efforts of top Capitol Hill and White House officials, drama is creeping back into negotiations over the stopgap spending bill needed to avert a partial government shutdown Oct. 1.
“There's no agreement on how long the continuing resolution will extend current funding levels, for starters, while tricky policy issues like upcoming redistricting-related census deadlines remain unresolved.
“What's more, there's even some talk among rank-and-file House Democrats about withholding their votes on the CR unless coronavirus relief provisions are attached, despite a White House-leadership deal to keep the two issues separate.”
Republicans reportedly want to THE temporary spending bill to last until mid-December, while Democrats want to push the next deadline to early next year. The negotiators have reportedly given themselves until Friday to reach a deal. "We hope we can reach a bipartisan, bicameral deal by tomorrow’s noon deadline," Evan Hollander, spokesman for House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) told Roll Call.
The House is expected to take up the spending bill next week.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-17--Jobless Claims at Historic Highs for 26th Week in a Row

About 860,000 people filed initial jobless claims last week , the Labor Department said Thursday , and another 659,000 people filed for benefits through the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program , which aids self-employed and gig workers .
The state results were slightly better than expected and the federal program total showed considerable improvement compared to last week , dropping by more than 200,000 , but the numbers remain extraordinarily high by historic standards , even as they slowly improve .
As former White House economist Aaron Sojourner wrote in a tweet : “ This makes 26 consecutive weeks ( a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's number of new state UI [ unemployment insurance ] claims higher than any of the prior 2,776 weeks on record back to 1967.
” Joseph Brusuelas , chief economist at the consulting firm RSM , explained why the claims data continue to be so troubling : “ The pace of firings in the U.S. economy remains well above anything observed during the Great Financial Crisis , ” he wrote in a commentary , adding that the numbers are “ a reflection of the deep scarring in the domestic labor market and economy.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Gus Faucher , chief economist at PNC Financial Services , said the economy could take a long time to recover completely .
“ The labor market continues to heal from the viral recession , but unemployment remains extremely elevated and will remain a problem for at least a couple of years , ” he said .
“ Initial claims have been roughly flat since early August , suggesting that the pace of improvement in layoffs is slowing.
” The stalemate in Washington over a new coronavirus stimulus package doesn ’ t bode @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming months , according to Michael Gapen , chief U.S. economist at Barclays .
“ [ I ] f we ’ re not getting any additional benefits for households and replacement of lost wage and salary income , it does look like the pace of improvement is certainly going to slow , ” Gapen told Bloomberg .

About 860,000 people filed initial jobless claims last week, the Labor Department said Thursday, and another 659,000 people filed for benefits through the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, which aids self-employed and gig workers.
The state results were slightly better than expected and the federal program total showed considerable improvement compared to last week, dropping by more than 200,000, but the numbers remain extraordinarily high by historic standards, even as they slowly improve. As former White House economist Aaron Sojourner wrote in a tweet: “This makes 26 consecutive weeks (a half year!) with every week's number of new state UI [unemployment insurance] claims higher than any of the prior 2,776 weeks on record back to 1967.”
Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at the consulting firm RSM, explained why the claims data continue to be so troubling: “The pace of firings in the U.S. economy remains well above anything observed during the Great Financial Crisis,” he wrote in a commentary, adding that the numbers are “a reflection of the deep scarring in the domestic labor market and economy.” (See his chart below.)
Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial Services, said the economy could take a long time to recover completely. “The labor market continues to heal from the viral recession, but unemployment remains extremely elevated and will remain a problem for at least a couple of years,” he said. “Initial claims have been roughly flat since early August, suggesting that the pace of improvement in layoffs is slowing.”
The stalemate in Washington over a new coronavirus stimulus package doesn’t bode well for the labor market in the coming months, according to Michael Gapen, chief U.S. economist at Barclays. “[I]f we’re not getting any additional benefits for households and replacement of lost wage and salary income, it does look like the pace of improvement is certainly going to slow,” Gapen told Bloomberg.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-17--Trump Admin Spending Millions on PR to ‘Inspire Hope’ on Covid: CDC Director

CDC Director Robert Redfield ’ s testimony before a Senate panel on Wednesday made headlines for his comments that face masks probably offer more protection against the coronavirus than a vaccine and that a vaccine won ’ t be widely available until the middle of next year — comments that President Trump later disputed in just the latest instance of the president rejecting the recommendations and basic facts provided by public health officials and publicly pressuring them on the proper pandemic response .
Redfield , we should note , later clarified his comment on Twitter : “ I 100 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the importance in particular of a # COVID19 vaccine .
A COVID-19 vaccine is the thing that will get Americans back to normal everyday life , ” he wrote .
“ The best defense we currently have against this virus are the important mitigation efforts of wearing a mask , washing your hands , social distancing and being careful about crowds.
” But there was significantly more to Redfield ’ s testimony than his urging people to wear masks .
As Roll Call ’ s Andrew Siddons reports , Redfield told the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 billion more to help states and cities build out their plans to distribute COVID-19 vaccines once they ’ re ready .
“ The time is now for us to be able to get those resources out to the states , and we currently don ’ t have those resources , ” he said .
Redfield also said that the Trump administration had directed his agency to transfer $ 300 million to the Department of Health and Human Services ’ public affairs office .
Siddons details where the money is going : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reportedly being used for a public relations campaign ‘ to defeat despair and inspire hope ’ in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic , which has killed nearly 200,000 Americans .
Lawmakers view the ads as an attempt to cast the Trump administration ’ s response to COVID-19 in a positive light .
Redfield said that since the transfer was made , the CDC hasn ’ t been involved in the campaign and hasn ’ t been asked to weigh in with scientific expertise .
“ The campaign prompted questions from subcommittee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money in accordance with laws enacted by Congress — particularly if the money would have otherwise been spent more directly on the health response .
”

CDC Director Robert Redfield’s testimony before a Senate panel on Wednesday made headlines for his comments that face masks probably offer more protection against the coronavirus than a vaccine and that a vaccine won’t be widely available until the middle of next year — comments that President Trump later disputed in just the latest instance of the president rejecting the recommendations and basic facts provided by public health officials and publicly pressuring them on the proper pandemic response.
Redfield, we should note, later clarified his comment on Twitter: “I 100% believe in the importance of vaccines and the importance in particular of a #COVID19 vaccine. A COVID-19 vaccine is the thing that will get Americans back to normal everyday life,” he wrote. “The best defense we currently have against this virus are the important mitigation efforts of wearing a mask, washing your hands, social distancing and being careful about crowds.”
But there was significantly more to Redfield’s testimony than his urging people to wear masks. As Roll Call’s Andrew Siddons reports, Redfield told the Senate panel that the CDC needs about $6 billion more to help states and cities build out their plans to distribute COVID-19 vaccines once they’re ready. “The time is now for us to be able to get those resources out to the states, and we currently don’t have those resources,” he said.
Redfield also said that the Trump administration had directed his agency to transfer $300 million to the Department of Health and Human Services’ public affairs office.
Siddons details where the money is going:
“Of that amount, $250 million is reportedly being used for a public relations campaign ‘to defeat despair and inspire hope’ in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed nearly 200,000 Americans. Lawmakers view the ads as an attempt to cast the Trump administration’s response to COVID-19 in a positive light. Redfield said that since the transfer was made, the CDC hasn’t been involved in the campaign and hasn’t been asked to weigh in with scientific expertise.
“The campaign prompted questions from subcommittee members about whether the administration is spending money in accordance with laws enacted by Congress — particularly if the money would have otherwise been spent more directly on the health response.”
Read more at Roll Call.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-16--Trump Urges GOP to Go for ‘Much Higher Numbers’ on Covid Relief

Maybe a coronavirus relief deal isn ’ t dead yet .
While talks haven ’ t resumed , pressure is building — and now it ’ s coming from the White House , too .
After months of stalemate , President Trump on Wednesday urged his fellow Republicans to go for “ much higher numbers ” in a coronavirus bill and sought to blame Democrats for blocking additional stimulus checks , mischaracterizing their position .
Seeming to suddenly realize that another aid package could boost his reelection chances , Trump tweeted : “ Democrats are ‘ heartless ’ .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PAYMENTS to people who desperately need the money , and whose fault it was NOT that the plague came in from China .
Go for the much higher numbers , Republicans , it all comes back to the USA anyway ( one way or another ! )
.
” Republicans have thus far resisted “ much bigger numbers , ” refusing to take up a $ 3.5 trillion bill passed by the House and failing to coalesce around a $ 1 trillion package put together by their own party .
Senate Republicans came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller $ 300 billion package .
But that legislation was blocked by Democrats , who said it was woefully insufficient .
That legislation did not include the additional round of direct payments that Trump said he wants .
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany reportedly said Wednesday that Trump was pressing for a bigger package than the one the Senate GOP proposed , with another round of stimulus checks added .
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told CNBC Wednesday that he is “ probably more optimistic about the potential for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have been in the last 72 days.
” Meadows also said that a $ 1.5 trillion proposal released Tuesday by the Problem Solvers Caucus , a bipartisan group of House members , “ at least provides a foundation for us to come back to the table.
” Meadows added that a deal would have to happen within a week to 10 days and that he opposed the $ 500 billion provided for state and local government in the Problem Solvers ’ proposal , saying he hoped the number would be closer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats seize on Trump ’ s tweet : Democratic leaders said they were encouraged by Trump ’ s tweet and hoped the administration would resume talks .
“ We look forward to hearing from the President ’ s negotiators that they will finally meet us halfway with a bill that is equal to the massive health and economic crises gripping our nation , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement .
But a group of House Democratic Committee leaders on Tuesday called the Problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will likely still press for more than $ 1.5 trillion in the next package .
Republicans cautious in their response : “ I ’ m not sure what higher numbers , what that means .
That probably needs to get translated for us , ” Sen. John Thune of South Dakota told The Washington Post .
“ But I know kind of what the threshold is for what we can get Republican votes for in the Senate , and I think if the number gets too high anything that got passed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes and a handful of Republicans , so it ’ s going to have to stay in sort of a realistic range.
” Another Republican , Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri , reportedly said that the Problem Solvers ’ proposal could provide a workable model since it included provisions that would raise or lower the total cost depending on the path of the pandemic .
Under the plan , spending could total about $ 1.3 trillion if the pandemic lets up more than expected or $ 2 trillion if it worsens .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little something to brag about , ” Blunt said , according to the Post .
“ There ’ s a deal there .
I think it would be really a shame if we don ’ t figure out how to grab hold of it.
” Blunt reportedly acknowledged that any deal would have to come with a price tag higher than $ 1 trillion , a level that many Republicans say is unacceptably high .
“ I don ’ t think you ’ d get hardly any Republicans , ” Sen. Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And you ’ d lose a bunch of fiscal conservatives , if you did anything other than what we voted on for last week.
” What it all means : Trump ’ s tweet could open the door for more talks , but they also put renewed focus on GOP senators , raising the question of whether a larger plan can garner substantial support among Republicans .
“ Several Senate Republicans said their recent $ 300 billion offer was about the right amount , signaling doubt they could go higher , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aiming for $ 2 trillion or so , the path to a bipartisan deal still isn ’ t all that much clearer today than it was last week .
The bottom line : Time is growing short .
More intense pressure from Trump could change the dynamics , but that doesn ’ t seem likely , and some Republicans indicated Wednesday they aren ’ t likely to follow Trump ’ s advice .
“ So the president has his opinion , we have ours , ” Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said .

Maybe a coronavirus relief deal isn’t dead yet. While talks haven’t resumed, pressure is building — and now it’s coming from the White House, too.
After months of stalemate, President Trump on Wednesday urged his fellow Republicans to go for “much higher numbers” in a coronavirus bill and sought to blame Democrats for blocking additional stimulus checks, mischaracterizing their position. Seeming to suddenly realize that another aid package could boost his reelection chances, Trump tweeted:
“Democrats are ‘heartless’. They don’t want to give STIMULUS PAYMENTS to people who desperately need the money, and whose fault it was NOT that the plague came in from China. Go for the much higher numbers, Republicans, it all comes back to the USA anyway (one way or another!).”
Republicans have thus far resisted “much bigger numbers,” refusing to take up a $3.5 trillion bill passed by the House and failing to coalesce around a $1 trillion package put together by their own party. Senate Republicans came together last week in support of a smaller $300 billion package. But that legislation was blocked by Democrats, who said it was woefully insufficient. That legislation did not include the additional round of direct payments that Trump said he wants.
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany reportedly said Wednesday that Trump was pressing for a bigger package than the one the Senate GOP proposed, with another round of stimulus checks added.
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told CNBC Wednesday that he is “probably more optimistic about the potential for a deal in the last 72 hours than I have been in the last 72 days.” Meadows also said that a $1.5 trillion proposal released Tuesday by the Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group of House members, “at least provides a foundation for us to come back to the table.” Meadows added that a deal would have to happen within a week to 10 days and that he opposed the $500 billion provided for state and local government in the Problem Solvers’ proposal, saying he hoped the number would be closer to $250 billion to $300 billion.
Democrats seize on Trump’s tweet: Democratic leaders said they were encouraged by Trump’s tweet and hoped the administration would resume talks. “We look forward to hearing from the President’s negotiators that they will finally meet us halfway with a bill that is equal to the massive health and economic crises gripping our nation,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.
But a group of House Democratic Committee leaders on Tuesday called the Problem Solvers proposal inadequate, meaning that Democrats will likely still press for more than $1.5 trillion in the next package.
Republicans cautious in their response: “I’m not sure what higher numbers, what that means. That probably needs to get translated for us,” Sen. John Thune of South Dakota told The Washington Post. “But I know kind of what the threshold is for what we can get Republican votes for in the Senate, and I think if the number gets too high anything that got passed in the Senate would be passed mostly with Democrat votes and a handful of Republicans, so it’s going to have to stay in sort of a realistic range.”
Another Republican, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, reportedly said that the Problem Solvers’ proposal could provide a workable model since it included provisions that would raise or lower the total cost depending on the path of the pandemic.
Under the plan, spending could total about $1.3 trillion if the pandemic lets up more than expected or $2 trillion if it worsens.
“Maybe the escalator clause concept gives everybody a little something to brag about,” Blunt said, according to the Post. “There’s a deal there. I think it would be really a shame if we don’t figure out how to grab hold of it.”
Blunt reportedly acknowledged that any deal would have to come with a price tag higher than $1 trillion, a level that many Republicans say is unacceptably high. “I don’t think you’d get hardly any Republicans,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) said. “And you’d lose a bunch of fiscal conservatives, if you did anything other than what we voted on for last week.”
What it all means: Trump’s tweet could open the door for more talks, but they also put renewed focus on GOP senators, raising the question of whether a larger plan can garner substantial support among Republicans. “Several Senate Republicans said their recent $300 billion offer was about the right amount, signaling doubt they could go higher,” the Post reports. And with Democrats still aiming for $2 trillion or so, the path to a bipartisan deal still isn’t all that much clearer today than it was last week.
The bottom line: Time is growing short. More intense pressure from Trump could change the dynamics, but that doesn’t seem likely, and some Republicans indicated Wednesday they aren’t likely to follow Trump’s advice. “So the president has his opinion, we have ours,” Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-21--Justice Dept. Labels Three Cities as 'Anarchy' Jurisdictions, Targets for Funding Cuts

The Justice Department said Monday that New York City , Seattle and Portland , Oregon , would be designated as jurisdictions “ that have permitted violence and destruction of property , ” opening up the possibility that federal funding for those cities would be cut under a memorandum signed by President Trump early this month .
The memo said the government should review the use of federal funds by jurisdictions “ that permit anarchy , violence , and destruction.
” It specifically mentioned Portland , Seattle , and New York as well as Washington , DC .
“ We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance , ” Attonery General William Barr said in a statement .
“ It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens.
” The Justice Department announcement criticized the Democratic leaders of those three cities for rejecting federal law enforcement involvement in response to social justice protests and said the cities “ have refused to undertake reasonable measures to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that President Trump was inflaming tensions by pressing for a stronger law enforcement crackdown on protests and sending armed federal agents to Portland .
The Justice Department said other cities may be added to the list based on a number of criteria , including whether they disempower or defund police departments or “ any other related factors the Attorney General deems appropriate.
” What ’ s next : The White House budget office is supposed to issue guidance about cutting funding to the three cities , even though it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut federal funding .
“ The Trump administration was unsuccessful in a similar funding-cut move against New York and other cities over their immigration policies .
A federal appeals court ruled that the move violated the separation of powers spelled out in the Constitution , ” The Washington Post reports .
Then again , whatever the ultimate outcome , the administration has for now reinforced Trump ’ s “ law and order ” campaign messaging .

The Justice Department said Monday that New York City, Seattle and Portland, Oregon, would be designated as jurisdictions “that have permitted violence and destruction of property,” opening up the possibility that federal funding for those cities would be cut under a memorandum signed by President Trump early this month. The memo said the government should review the use of federal funds by jurisdictions “that permit anarchy, violence, and destruction.” It specifically mentioned Portland, Seattle, and New York as well as Washington, DC.
“We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance,” Attonery General William Barr said in a statement. “It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens.”
The Justice Department announcement criticized the Democratic leaders of those three cities for rejecting federal law enforcement involvement in response to social justice protests and said the cities “have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities.” Local leaders have said that President Trump was inflaming tensions by pressing for a stronger law enforcement crackdown on protests and sending armed federal agents to Portland.
The Justice Department said other cities may be added to the list based on a number of criteria, including whether they disempower or defund police departments or “any other related factors the Attorney General deems appropriate.”
What’s next: The White House budget office is supposed to issue guidance about cutting funding to the three cities, even though it’s not clear that Trump has the power to cut federal funding. “The Trump administration was unsuccessful in a similar funding-cut move against New York and other cities over their immigration policies. A federal appeals court ruled that the move violated the separation of powers spelled out in the Constitution,” The Washington Post reports. Then again, whatever the ultimate outcome, the administration has for now reinforced Trump’s “law and order” campaign messaging.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-18--Judge Orders Halt to Changes at US Postal Service

Chief Judge Stanley A. Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Thursday night granted a request to block operational changes at the U.S .
Postal Service .
Democratic officials from 14 states sought the injunction , and the decision in their favor stated that President Trump and Postmaster General Louis DeJoy are intentionally interfering with the postal system for political gain .
“ The states have demonstrated that the defendants are involved in a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service , ” Bastian said .
“ They have also demonstrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is likely to irreparably harm the states ’ ability to administer the 2020 general election.
” The ruling , which you can read here , includes a stinging indictment of the Trump administration ’ s efforts , which the judge said amount to “ voter disenfranchisement ” : “ Although not necessarily apparent on the surface , at the heart of DeJoy ’ s and the Postal Service ’ s actions is voter disenfranchisement .
This is evident in President Trump ’ s highly partisan words and tweets , the actual impact of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in uncounted ballots , and recent attempts and lawsuits by the Republican National Committee and President Trump ’ s campaign to stop the States ’ efforts to bypass the Postal Service by utilizing ballot drop boxes , as well as the timing of the changes .
It is easy to conclude that the recent Postal Services ’ changes is an intentional effort on the part the current Administration to disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local , state , and federal elections , especially given that 72 % of the decommissioned high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were located in counties where Hillary Clinton receive the most votes in 2016.
” Donald Lee Moak , a member of the USPS Board of Governors , denied the accusation .
“ Any suggestion that there is a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service is completely and utterly without merit , ” Moak said , according to The Washington Post .

Chief Judge Stanley A. Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Thursday night granted a request to block operational changes at the U.S. Postal Service.
Democratic officials from 14 states sought the injunction, and the decision in their favor stated that President Trump and Postmaster General Louis DeJoy are intentionally interfering with the postal system for political gain.
“The states have demonstrated that the defendants are involved in a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service,” Bastian said. “They have also demonstrated that this attack on the Postal Service is likely to irreparably harm the states’ ability to administer the 2020 general election.”
The ruling, which you can read here, includes a stinging indictment of the Trump administration’s efforts, which the judge said amount to “voter disenfranchisement”:
“Although not necessarily apparent on the surface, at the heart of DeJoy’s and the Postal Service’s actions is voter disenfranchisement. This is evident in President Trump’s highly partisan words and tweets, the actual impact of the changes on primary elections that resulted in uncounted ballots, and recent attempts and lawsuits by the Republican National Committee and President Trump’s campaign to stop the States’ efforts to bypass the Postal Service by utilizing ballot drop boxes, as well as the timing of the changes. It is easy to conclude that the recent Postal Services’ changes is an intentional effort on the part the current Administration to disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local, state, and federal elections, especially given that 72% of the decommissioned high speed mail sorting machines that were decommissioned were located in counties where Hillary Clinton receive the most votes in 2016.”
Donald Lee Moak, a member of the USPS Board of Governors, denied the accusation. “Any suggestion that there is a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service is completely and utterly without merit,” Moak said, according to The Washington Post.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-18--Lawmakers Back Off a Deal to Avoid a Shutdown in October

UPDATE : The Washington Post 's Erica Werner is reporting that the tentative deal has fallen apart : `` A possible deal on a stopgap spending bill to avert a pre-election government shutdown looked uncertain late Friday after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin did not come to terms .
Two Republican aides familiar with the situation said Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) had essentially backed out of a deal with Mnuchin that would have traded farm bailout money the White House wants for $ 2 billion in child nutrition spending Democrats want . ''
Congressional negotiators on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” on a short-term spending deal that would avert a government shutdown on October 1 , when the next fiscal year begins .
Assuming the agreement holds , the House is expected to vote on the bill next week , followed by the Senate .
Missing a self-imposed noon deadline , the deal was held up by a White House demand for $ 30 billion to replenish a Depression-era fund that has been used to provide aid for farmers hurt financially by President Trump ’ s trade policies .
Trump took to Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ Pelosi wants to take 30 Billion Dollars away from our great Farmers .
Can ’ t let that happen !
” Initially resisting the White House request – a Democratic aide said it was “ an abuse of taxpayer dollars to give this administration more money so the president can grab headlines with announcements at campaign rallies ” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) backed down late in the day .
In exchange , Democrats will get one of their funding requests , about $ 2 billion for nutrition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
Democrats reportedly will not get some of their other demands , however , including $ 3.6 billion for election security and an extension of the December 31 deadline for the Census Bureau to turn over the data from the latest national count to Congress .
The deal would extend current funding levels until December 11 , well short of the February 26 end date Democrats had been seeking , potentially setting up another contentious standoff in a lame-duck Congress and during a possible presidential transition .

UPDATE: The Washington Post's Erica Werner is reporting that the tentative deal has fallen apart: "A possible deal on a stopgap spending bill to avert a pre-election government shutdown looked uncertain late Friday after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin did not come to terms. Two Republican aides familiar with the situation said Pelosi (D-Calif.) had essentially backed out of a deal with Mnuchin that would have traded farm bailout money the White House wants for $2 billion in child nutrition spending Democrats want."
Here's where things stood based on reporting earlier Friday:
Congressional negotiators on Friday reached an agreement “in principle” on a short-term spending deal that would avert a government shutdown on October 1, when the next fiscal year begins. Assuming the agreement holds, the House is expected to vote on the bill next week, followed by the Senate.
Missing a self-imposed noon deadline, the deal was held up by a White House demand for $30 billion to replenish a Depression-era fund that has been used to provide aid for farmers hurt financially by President Trump’s trade policies. Trump took to Twitter to press his case Friday, charging that “Pelosi wants to take 30 Billion Dollars away from our great Farmers. Can’t let that happen!”
Initially resisting the White House request – a Democratic aide said it was “an abuse of taxpayer dollars to give this administration more money so the president can grab headlines with announcements at campaign rallies” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) backed down late in the day. In exchange, Democrats will get one of their funding requests, about $2 billion for nutrition assistance for children affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
Democrats reportedly will not get some of their other demands, however, including $3.6 billion for election security and an extension of the December 31 deadline for the Census Bureau to turn over the data from the latest national count to Congress.
The deal would extend current funding levels until December 11, well short of the February 26 end date Democrats had been seeking, potentially setting up another contentious standoff in a lame-duck Congress and during a possible presidential transition.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-17--Pelosi Doubles Down on Demand for $2.2 Trillion in Coronavirus Relief

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated Thursday that Democrats will keep pressing for a coronavirus relief package of at least $ 2.2 trillion .
“ It 's hard to see how we can go any lower when you only have greater needs , '' she told reporters .
Pelosi ’ s comments come after President Trump on Wednesday urged Republicans to go for “ much higher numbers ” in a stimulus deal , including another round of direct payments to individual Americans .
Trump also expressed some support for a $ 1.5 trillion package proposed this week by a bipartisan group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solvers Caucus .
“ I ’ d like to see the larger number , ” Trump said at a White House news conference Wednesday evening .
“ Yeah , I would like to see it .
There are some things I disagree with , but I ’ m sure they can be negotiated.
” The Problem Solvers proposal was largely rejected on Capitol Hill , with Republicans saying it cost too much and Democratic leaders saying it didn ’ t go far enough .
Still , after weeks of deadlock in negotiations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new Problem Solvers plan and Trump ’ s comments had sparked some renewed optimism that a deal might still be possible before lawmakers depart for the November elections .
Pelosi said Democrats have shown they are open to compromise , dropping their demands by more than $ 1 trillion from a $ 3.4 trillion package passed by the House in May .
`` We asked them to go up $ 1 trillion , instead they went down , not recognizing the need , '' she said , adding , “ Why ca @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shore up the middle class in our country ? ''
But White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said Pelosi ’ s position is “ an ultimatum , ” not a negotiation .
`` Based on conversations with some Democrat House members yesterday , I 'm not optimistic Speaker Pelosi is going to see this as an opportunity to actually have meaningful conversations , ” Meadows told reporters Thursday , according to Roll Call .
The bottom line : Nothing much has really changed here .
The two sides are still about $ @ @ @ @

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated Thursday that Democrats will keep pressing for a coronavirus relief package of at least $2.2 trillion.
“It's hard to see how we can go any lower when you only have greater needs," she told reporters.
Pelosi’s comments come after President Trump on Wednesday urged Republicans to go for “much higher numbers” in a stimulus deal, including another round of direct payments to individual Americans. Trump also expressed some support for a $1.5 trillion package proposed this week by a bipartisan group of centrist House members called the Problem Solvers Caucus.
“I’d like to see the larger number,” Trump said at a White House news conference Wednesday evening. “Yeah, I would like to see it. There are some things I disagree with, but I’m sure they can be negotiated.”
The Problem Solvers proposal was largely rejected on Capitol Hill, with Republicans saying it cost too much and Democratic leaders saying it didn’t go far enough. Still, after weeks of deadlock in negotiations, increasing pressure from rank-and-file Democrats combined with the new Problem Solvers plan and Trump’s comments had sparked some renewed optimism that a deal might still be possible before lawmakers depart for the November elections.
Pelosi said Democrats have shown they are open to compromise, dropping their demands by more than $1 trillion from a $3.4 trillion package passed by the House in May. "We asked them to go up $1 trillion, instead they went down, not recognizing the need," she said, adding, “Why can't we spend what it takes to shore up the middle class in our country?"
But White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said Pelosi’s position is “an ultimatum,” not a negotiation. "Based on conversations with some Democrat House members yesterday, I'm not optimistic Speaker Pelosi is going to see this as an opportunity to actually have meaningful conversations,” Meadows told reporters Thursday, according to Roll Call.
The bottom line: Nothing much has really changed here. The two sides are still about $1 trillion apart.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-21--CDC Removes New Guidance on How Coronavirus Spreads

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is making some confusing — and potentially controversial — changes to its guidance on how the coronavirus spreads .
What ’ s happening : The agency on Friday quietly updated its website to say that the novel coronavirus can spread `` through respiratory droplets or small particles , such as those in aerosols , produced when an infected person coughs , sneezes , sings , talks or breathes . ''
Where the agency had previously warned that the virus spreads mainly via larger droplets when people are in close contact , the revised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particles that can linger in the air for longer — were “ thought to be the main way the virus spreads . ''
On Monday morning , the CDC removed that updated language , saying a draft version of proposed changes had been posted in error .
`` It was a failure of process at CDC , ” Jay Butler , the agency ’ s deputy director for infectious disease , told The Washington Post .
The agency reportedly is still working on updated guidance to be posted as soon as Monday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is possible , but not the primary method by which the virus spreads , a source told The Wall Street Journal .
Why it matters , part 1 : Friday ’ s revisions represented a significant shift .
Some experts suggested the new language “ should drive a major rethink of public policy — particularly at a time when students in many areas are returning to indoor classrooms , ” the Post reports .
The Journal ’ s Caitlin McCabe adds : “ Acknowledging aerosol transmission of the coronavirus would carry significant implications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-openings .
To reduce the risk of aerosol transmission , property owners and building managers would need to implement precautions such as better ventilation and proper social distancing , according to scientists and researchers studying Covid-19.
” Why it matters , part 2 : As the Trump administration seeks to push schools and businesses to reopen , such reversals instantly raise concerns , warranted or not , about the politicization of pandemic response .
“ That type of whiplash , especially without an explanation directly from the CDC , creates confusion and unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CDC overall , ” Dr. Leanna Wen , a visiting professor of health policy and management at the George Washington University and former Baltimore health commissioner , told CNN .
“ The fact that they retracted this , even though this is common scientific knowledge at this point , one has to wonder what ’ s behind it .
Was there political pressure , political interference that ’ s driving this rather than science ?
” This isn ’ t the first time health officials have walked back their guidance regarding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reversed controversial guidance that said that people who were exposed to someone with the virus don ’ t need to get tested if they don ’ t have symptoms of infection .
And President Trump last week disputed his CDC chief ’ s public comments on the importance of face masks and the timing of a vaccine .
The CDC about-face also comes after Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar reportedly issued a memo barring health agencies , including the Food and Drug Administration , from signing any new rules `` regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , medical devices and other products ” — a move that outside experts warned could add to the public perception of political interference in decisions that should be based in science and medicine .
The bottom line : Even if the CDC ’ s changed guidance was simply a failure of process and not political , it ’ s another stumble that highlights the dangerous erosion of trust in public health officials under the Trump administration — and it threatens to further erode that trust .
Remember , the CDC has long been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s leading public health organizations .
But its mistakes have been piling up .
“ This can not happen again , ” the CDC ’ s Butler told the Post .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is making some confusing — and potentially controversial — changes to its guidance on how the coronavirus spreads.
What’s happening: The agency on Friday quietly updated its website to say that the novel coronavirus can spread "through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks or breathes." Where the agency had previously warned that the virus spreads mainly via larger droplets when people are in close contact, the revised page reportedly said that aerosols — smaller particles that can linger in the air for longer — were “thought to be the main way the virus spreads."
On Monday morning, the CDC removed that updated language, saying a draft version of proposed changes had been posted in error. "It was a failure of process at CDC,” Jay Butler, the agency’s deputy director for infectious disease, told The Washington Post. The agency reportedly is still working on updated guidance to be posted as soon as Monday. It wants to convey that aerosol transmission is possible, but not the primary method by which the virus spreads, a source told The Wall Street Journal.
Why it matters, part 1: Friday’s revisions represented a significant shift. Some experts suggested the new language “should drive a major rethink of public policy — particularly at a time when students in many areas are returning to indoor classrooms,” the Post reports. The Journal’s Caitlin McCabe adds: “Acknowledging aerosol transmission of the coronavirus would carry significant implications for how businesses and schools proceed with re-openings. To reduce the risk of aerosol transmission, property owners and building managers would need to implement precautions such as better ventilation and proper social distancing, according to scientists and researchers studying Covid-19.”
Why it matters, part 2: As the Trump administration seeks to push schools and businesses to reopen, such reversals instantly raise concerns, warranted or not, about the politicization of pandemic response.
“That type of whiplash, especially without an explanation directly from the CDC, creates confusion and unfortunately it leads to lack of trust in the CDC overall,” Dr. Leanna Wen, a visiting professor of health policy and management at the George Washington University and former Baltimore health commissioner, told CNN. “The fact that they retracted this, even though this is common scientific knowledge at this point, one has to wonder what’s behind it. Was there political pressure, political interference that’s driving this rather than science?”
This isn’t the first time health officials have walked back their guidance regarding the coronavirus. The CDC just last week reversed controversial guidance that said that people who were exposed to someone with the virus don’t need to get tested if they don’t have symptoms of infection. And President Trump last week disputed his CDC chief’s public comments on the importance of face masks and the timing of a vaccine.
The CDC about-face also comes after Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar reportedly issued a memo barring health agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, from signing any new rules "regarding the nation’s foods, medicines, medical devices and other products” — a move that outside experts warned could add to the public perception of political interference in decisions that should be based in science and medicine.
The bottom line: Even if the CDC’s changed guidance was simply a failure of process and not political, it’s another stumble that highlights the dangerous erosion of trust in public health officials under the Trump administration — and it threatens to further erode that trust. Remember, the CDC has long been viewed as one of the world’s leading public health organizations. But its mistakes have been piling up. “This cannot happen again,” the CDC’s Butler told the Post.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-21--The Shutdown Threat Just Got Real

The Shutdown Threat Just Got Real

Last week ’ s tentative deal to prevent a shutdown of the federal government when the fiscal year ends at midnight on September 30 fell apart late Friday , with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) reportedly objecting to a White House demand for more money for a farmer bailout as part of the agreement .
Republicans blamed Pelosi for backing out of the agreement , while Democrats claimed they had never really made a deal in the first place .
In an attempt to move beyond the dispute , House Democrats unveiled a continuing resolution on Monday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The bill omits the issues that hung up negotiators last week – including $ 30 billion for a relief fund for farmers that Republicans wanted and roughly $ 2 billion for food aid for children that Democrats had sought – while extending current funding for most government agencies .
The bill would also extend highway funding and the National Flood Insurance Program , and prevent a $ 50 per month increase in the cost of Medicare Part B .
“ The Continuing Resolution introduced today will avert a catastrophic shutdown in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hurricanes , and keep government open until Dec. 11 , when we plan to have bipartisan legislation to fund the government for this fiscal year , ” Pelosi said in a statement Monday .
House leaders plan to vote on the bill Tuesday .
Republicans are leery .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) was quick to criticize the bill , though without stating clearly that he would oppose it .
“ House Democrats ’ rough draft of a government funding bill shamefully leaves out key relief and support that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to add insult to injury and defund help for farmers and rural America , ” McConnell said in a tweet .
The White House was a bit less critical , suggesting that the Trump administration could conceivably go along with the Democratic plan rather than risk a shutdown .
“ We do prefer additional farm aid in the CR [ continuing resolution ] , ” top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said .
“ Most of all we want a clean CR to keep the government open.
” The Senate could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an amended version and pass it back to the House .
It could also ultimately approve the House version and move on to other matters .
Progressives call for new tactics .
The news of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg late Friday added a new potential wrinkle to the negotiations , with some progressives calling for Pelosi to use the continuing resolution – and the threat of a shutdown – to gain leverage in effort to stop or delay the nomination of a new member of the court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , said Monday that Democrats should consider every possible option in their political battle over the high court , including blocking the “ must-pass budget.
” But Pelosi says she ’ s not interested .
Asked by ABC News ’ George Stephanopoulos on Sunday if she had considered using the government funding bill as leverage in an attempt to slow the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice , Pelosi said “ none of us has any interest in shutting down government .
That -- that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on so many people in our country .
So I would hope that we can just proceed with that .
There is some enthusiasm among some exuberance on the left to say let 's use that , but we 're not going to be shutting down government.
” Pelosi did say that she is considering other ways to fight the Supreme Court battle .
“ Well , we have our options , ” she said in response to a question about the possibility of using an impeachment proceeding to slow the Senate ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We have arrows in our quiver that I ’ m not about to discuss right now , but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country .
But the shutdown threat can ’ t be dismissed entirely .
Although all parties involved have said they want to avoid a shutdown of the government , the lack of agreement so close to the deadline – just over a week away – does not bode well .
“ With McConnell 's announcement that Senate R 's oppose the CR House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ‘ government shutdown looms ’ territory 9 days ahead of deadline , ” The Washington Post ’ s Erica Werner said Monday .

Last week’s tentative deal to prevent a shutdown of the federal government when the fiscal year ends at midnight on September 30 fell apart late Friday, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reportedly objecting to a White House demand for more money for a farmer bailout as part of the agreement. Republicans blamed Pelosi for backing out of the agreement, while Democrats claimed they had never really made a deal in the first place.
In an attempt to move beyond the dispute, House Democrats unveiled a continuing resolution on Monday that would keep the government open through mid-December. The bill omits the issues that hung up negotiators last week – including $30 billion for a relief fund for farmers that Republicans wanted and roughly $2 billion for food aid for children that Democrats had sought – while extending current funding for most government agencies. The bill would also extend highway funding and the National Flood Insurance Program, and prevent a $50 per month increase in the cost of Medicare Part B.
“The Continuing Resolution introduced today will avert a catastrophic shutdown in the middle of the ongoing pandemic, wildfires and hurricanes, and keep government open until Dec. 11, when we plan to have bipartisan legislation to fund the government for this fiscal year,” Pelosi said in a statement Monday.
House leaders plan to vote on the bill Tuesday.
Republicans are leery. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was quick to criticize the bill, though without stating clearly that he would oppose it. “House Democrats’ rough draft of a government funding bill shamefully leaves out key relief and support that American farmers need. This is no time to add insult to injury and defund help for farmers and rural America,” McConnell said in a tweet.
The White House was a bit less critical, suggesting that the Trump administration could conceivably go along with the Democratic plan rather than risk a shutdown. “We do prefer additional farm aid in the CR [continuing resolution],” top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said. “Most of all we want a clean CR to keep the government open.”
The Senate could block a House-passed bill or vote on an amended version and pass it back to the House. It could also ultimately approve the House version and move on to other matters.
Progressives call for new tactics. The news of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg late Friday added a new potential wrinkle to the negotiations, with some progressives calling for Pelosi to use the continuing resolution – and the threat of a shutdown – to gain leverage in effort to stop or delay the nomination of a new member of the court.
David Sirota, a former speechwriter for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), said Monday that Democrats should consider every possible option in their political battle over the high court, including blocking the “must-pass budget.”
But Pelosi says she’s not interested. Asked by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Sunday if she had considered using the government funding bill as leverage in an attempt to slow the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, Pelosi said “none of us has any interest in shutting down government. That -- that has such a harmful and painful impact on so many people in our country. So I would hope that we can just proceed with that. There is some enthusiasm among some exuberance on the left to say let's use that, but we're not going to be shutting down government.”
Pelosi did say that she is considering other ways to fight the Supreme Court battle. “Well, we have our options,” she said in response to a question about the possibility of using an impeachment proceeding to slow the Senate’s effort to confirm a new judge. “We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country.
But the shutdown threat can’t be dismissed entirely. Although all parties involved have said they want to avoid a shutdown of the government, the lack of agreement so close to the deadline – just over a week away – does not bode well. “With McConnell's announcement that Senate R's oppose the CR House Dems filed today, we're suddenly in ‘government shutdown looms’ territory 9 days ahead of deadline,” The Washington Post’s Erica Werner said Monday.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-18--Pandemic Legislation Will Boost GDP by 4.7% This Year: CBO

The four major laws passed by Congress to address the coronavirus pandemic will boost real domestic gross product by 4.7 @ @ @ @ @ % in 2021 , the Congressional Budget Office said Friday .
The “ wide array @ @ @ @ @ policies ” in the laws will also add $ 2.3 trillion to the deficit in @ @ @ @ @ $ 0.6 trillion in the following fiscal year , according to CBO estimates .
“ @ @ @ @ @ households , businesses , and state and local governments , the legislation will offset part @ @ @ @ @ conditions brought about by the pandemic , ” CBO said .
“ From fiscal year @ @ @ @ @ every dollar that it adds to the deficit , the legislation is projected to increase @ @ @ @ @ ” In the long run , CBO expects the increased debt to weigh on growth @ @ @ @ @ up borrowing costs .

The four major laws passed by Congress to address the coronavirus pandemic will boost real domestic gross product by 4.7% in 2020 and 3.1% in 2021, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday. The “wide array of conventional and unconventional fiscal policies” in the laws will also add $2.3 trillion to the deficit in the current fiscal year and $0.6 trillion in the following fiscal year, according to CBO estimates.
“By providing financial support to households, businesses, and state and local governments, the legislation will offset part of the deterioration in economic conditions brought about by the pandemic,” CBO said. “From fiscal year 2020 through 2023, for every dollar that it adds to the deficit, the legislation is projected to increase GDP by about 59 cents.”
In the long run, CBO expects the increased debt to weigh on growth, in part by driving up borrowing costs.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-22--Lawmakers Reach Deal to Avert Shutdown

Lawmakers Reach Deal to Avert Shutdown

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) said Tuesday evening that she had reached an agreement with Treasury Secretary Steven @ @ @ @ @ deal that would avert a shutdown of the federal government when the current fiscal year @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi said the continuing resolution to extend government funding would include $ 8 billion in @ @ @ @ @ as well as additional oversight for a relief program that provides aid to farmers .
@ @ @ @ @ agreement with Republicans on the [ continuing resolution ] to add nearly $ 8 billion @ @ @ @ @ for hungry schoolchildren and families .
We also increase accountability in the Commodity Credit Corporation @ @ @ @ @ from being misused for a Big Oil bailout , '' Pelosi said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ Hoyer ( D-MD ) said he expects to hold a vote Tuesday night .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Tuesday evening that she had reached an agreement with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on a three-month funding deal that would avert a shutdown of the federal government when the current fiscal year ends on September 30.
Pelosi said the continuing resolution to extend government funding would include $8 billion in nutrition assistance for children, as well as additional oversight for a relief program that provides aid to farmers.
"We have reached an agreement with Republicans on the [continuing resolution] to add nearly $8 billion in desperately needed nutrition assistance for hungry schoolchildren and families. We also increase accountability in the Commodity Credit Corporation, preventing funds for farmers from being misused for a Big Oil bailout," Pelosi said in a statement.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said he expects to hold a vote Tuesday night.