Budgets and Budgeting

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares62 Views

    Attorneys General Sue Over Access to $1 Billion in Federal School Aid

    by

    The Trump administration abruptly cut states’ access to Covid pandemic funding for school programs, saying they’d had enough time to spend it.Sixteen attorneys general and a Democratic governor sued the Trump administration on Thursday to restore access to over $1 billion in federal pandemic relief aid for schools that was recently halted, saying that the pullback could cause acute harm to students.The suit, led by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, and filed in Manhattan federal court, is one of the latest efforts by states to fight President Trump’s clawback of funding allocated to programs he does not want the government to support. The funding was part of a windfall of more than $190 billion that the U.S. Department of Education distributed to schools at the height of the coronavirus pandemic.The government’s reversal “triggered chaos,” the suit says. New York was one of the states with the most unspent money: over $130 million. California had more than $205 million in unspent money, and Maryland had $245 million, the most among the states that sued.“Cutting school systems’ access to vital resources that our students and teachers rely on is outrageous and illegal,” Ms. James said in a news release.The coalition’s filing on Thursday comes nearly a month after 21 Democratic attorneys general sued the administration for firing about half of the Education Department’s staff. Linda McMahon, the education secretary, said the move would help the department deliver services more efficiently.The White House also suspended millions of dollars in teacher-training grants that it argued would promote diversity, equity and inclusion, which prompted yet another suit from New York and other states.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Plan to Skirt Senate Rules to Push Through More Tax Cuts

      by

      G.O.P. leaders are planning to use the “nuclear option” to steer around the Senate’s in-house referee and allow the use of a gimmick that makes trillions of dollars in tax cuts appear to be free.For decades, senators looking to push major budget and tax legislation through Congress on a simple majority vote have had to win the blessing of a single unelected figure on Capitol Hill.The Senate parliamentarian, a civil servant who acts as the arbiter and enforcer of the chamber’s byzantine rules, has traditionally been in a position to make or break entire presidential agendas. That includes determining whether budget and tax legislation can be fast-tracked through Congress and shielded from a filibuster, allowing it to pass along party lines through a process known as reconciliation.Now, in their zeal to deliver President Trump’s domestic policy agenda in “one big beautiful bill” of spending and tax cuts, Senate Republicans are trying to steer around the parliamentarian, busting a substantial congressional norm in the process.The strategy would allow them to avoid getting a formal thumbs up or thumbs down on their claim that extending the tax cuts that Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017 would cost nothing — a gimmick that would make it easier for them cram as many tax reductions as possible into their bill without appearing to balloon the deficit.In recent days, all eyes have been on Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, to see whether she would bless the trick, smoothing the path for the G.O.P. bill. But on Wednesday, Republicans signaled that they planned to take extraordinary action to go around her altogether.Rather than have Ms. MacDonough weigh in, they asserted that Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as chairman of the Budget Committee, could unilaterally decide the cost of the legislation, citing a 1974 budget law. Senate Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new budget resolution they planned to put to a vote as early as this week. And Mr. Graham declared in a statement that he considered an extension of the 2017 tax cuts to be cost-free.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      It’s Not Too Late to Rein In Holiday Spending

      by

      Research suggests that you’ll spend less than you otherwise would by setting a strict budget — even if you go over the budget.Black Friday and Cyber Monday have come and gone. So you may think that setting limits on holiday spending is a lost cause, right?Not so, said Jamie L. Clark, a certified financial planner in Seattle. The December holidays are still weeks away. “It’s never too late to make a plan.”Chuck Howard, an associate professor of business administration at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, said research suggests you’ll spend less by setting a holiday budget that’s “optimistically low.”That’s because even when compliance with budgets is weak, setting stricter, even somewhat unrealistic budgets tends to lead to lower spending, according to a study he helped write on the influence of budgeting on personal spending.Dr. Howard cited this example. Say you usually spend $500 a month dining out. You may think a realistic budget is $400 a month. But if you really want to cut back, you should set a budget of, say, $250. That way, if you spend $350, you’ve still spent much less than you used to.A tight holiday-spending limit serves as a reference point, he said, and even if you surpass it, you’ll probably spend less than if you had set a higher limit or hadn’t set a budget in the first place.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      France’s Prime Minister Pushes Through Budget Bill; No-Confidence Vote Could Follow

      by

      A collapse of the government could further unnerve financial markets since it would put a quick passage of the budget at risk.Prime Minister Michel Barnier of France pushed a budget bill through the lower house of Parliament without a vote on Monday — a risky move that sets the stage for a likely no-confidence motion this week that could topple the government.The prospect of a government collapse — and of a failure to pass a budget — has rattled financial markets, sharply increased France’s borrowing costs, and further deepened the uncertainty that has gripped the country since snap elections last summer yielded no clear parliamentary majority.The fate of Mr. Barnier and of his cabinet, both appointed by President Emmanuel Macron just three months ago, now rests almost entirely in the hands of Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party.Mr. Macron, whose term runs through mid-2027, will remain as president even if Mr. Barnier and his cabinet fall. But Mr. Macron will need to appoint a new prime minister.Ms. Le Pen and Mr. Barnier, a veteran center-right politician, have engaged in a game of chicken over the past week. Ms. Le Pen dangled the threat of a no-confidence motion ever more vocally if Mr. Barnier did not accede to her demands on the budget. Mr. Barnier warned of “serious turbulence on the financial markets” and the troubles ahead if the country reaches the new year without a budget — warnings that Ms. Le Pen has dismissed as fear-mongering and “fake news.”Mr. Barnier made some concessions, announcing that he was scrapping a hike in electricity taxes and reducing health care coverage for undocumented people. But Ms. Le Pen indicated those changes were not enough to sway her lawmakers from joining those on the left who oppose Mr. Barnier’s leadership in voting to topple the government.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      UK Budget: Labour Party to Raise Capital Gains and Inheritance Taxes

      by

      Rachel Reeves, the new finance minister, announced substantial tax increases in her first budget as she sought to strengthen public finances and services.The new British government, led by the Labour Party, said it would substantially raise taxes and borrow more for investment as it sought to steer the country out of a long run of economic stagnation.Rachel Reeves, the chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered her first budget — and the first one ever by a woman — in Parliament on Wednesday. In a nearly 80-minute speech, Ms. Reeves announced about 40 billion pounds ($51.8 billion) in tax increases, more than half of which would come from higher taxes that employers pay on their workers’ salaries. She also increased capital gains and inheritance taxes.“The choices that I have made today are the right choices for our country,” Ms. Reeves said. “That doesn’t mean these choices are easy.”The budget was the first big opportunity for the Labour Party to set Britain’s economic agenda after it was swept into office with a large majority in July’s general election after 14 years out of power.But after a turbulent few months in office for the Labour Party, the budget has been seen as a reset moment for the party itself. Keir Starmer, the prime minister, said this week that the budget would “light the way” toward the government’s priorities of ensuring financial stability, improving public services and encouraging investment.For months, Ms. Reeves has warned that this budget would include “difficult” choices, signaling that Britons will have to swallow pain now for a bigger payoff later. These choices, government officials have said, will help the government achieve its goal of making Britain the fastest-growing economy in the Group of 7.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      A Bargain at the Opera: Philadelphia Offers All Seats for as Low as $11

      by

      Seeking new audiences, Opera Philadelphia is putting in place a pay-what-you-can model, one of the first of its kind by a major opera company.In Philadelphia, a night at the opera may now be cheaper than going to the movies.Opera Philadelphia, a company with a reputation for innovation and ambition, announced on Tuesday that it was putting in place a pay-what-you-can model for the 2024-25 season, with all tickets for all performances starting at $11. The initiative, which the company calls Pick Your Price, is aimed at attracting new audiences.“People want to go to the opera, but it’s expensive,” said Anthony Roth Costanzo, the celebrated American countertenor who became the company’s general director and president in June. “Our goal is to bring opera to more people and bring more people to the opera.”It immediately proved popular. On Tuesday, the day the initiative was announced, Opera Philadelphia said it sold more than 2,200 tickets for the coming season, compared with about 20 the day before. The tickets were originally priced at $26 to $300.High ticket prices have long been a barrier to audiences, and especially to newcomers. In recent years a number of performing arts groups, including Lincoln Center, the Chicago Sinfonietta and Ars Nova, the Off Broadway incubator, have experimented with pay-what-you-can approaches. Other opera companies have experimented with discounts, including rush tickets and deals offered to young people. But Opera Philadelphia’s approach was one of the boldest yet.Its website explains that all tickets start at $11 but that people will be given the option of choosing to pay much more, including the standard price.Like many nonprofit performing arts organizations, Opera Philadelphia gets much more of its revenue from philanthropy than through ticket sales. Radically lowering the prices could encourage more donations, which will no longer risk being seen as subsidizing an expensive art form that is out of reach for many people. And Costanzo said that the new model would allow the company to concentrate more on staging interesting works, and less on worrying about ticket sales.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      France Warned by E.U. About ‘Excessive’ Deficit

      by

      The rebuke for breaking European Union rules that require strict financial discipline comes two weeks before French voters head to the polls for parliamentary elections.Add an entry to the list of troubles facing President Emmanuel Macron of France less than two weeks before pivotal legislative elections: potential financial penalties by the European Union for failure to rein in the nation’s ballooning deficit and debt.The reprimand, announced Wednesday in Brussels, highlighted France’s fragile finances at a moment of political turmoil, as the far right National Rally party, led by Marine Le Pen, and a left-wing coalition, the New Popular Front, appear increasingly positioned to form a new government that could weaken Mr. Macron’s grip on power.Mr. Macron threw French politics into disarray earlier this month by calling for snap parliamentary elections after his party was battered by the far right in European Parliament elections.The fiscal warning by E.U. authorities set the stage for a possible confrontation between Brussels and Paris. Both the National Rally and the New Popular Front have pledged to spend more on public services at a time when Mr. Macron is being forced to find deep budgetary cuts of up to 25 billion euros ($26.9 billion) this year to improve the nation’s finances. The opposition parties, however, are critical of E.U. institutions, and want to ease rather than tighten fiscal policy.France is in debt to the tune of around €3 trillion, or more than 110 percent of gross domestic product, and a deficit of €154 billion, representing 5.5 percent of economic output. The budget crunch comes after Mr. Macron spent heavily to support workers and businesses during pandemic lockdowns. His government also provided subsidies to help households cope with a jump in inflation after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which sent energy prices soaring.President Emmanuel Macron has called for snap parliamentary elections, throwing French politics into disarray.Hannah Mckay/ReutersWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How California, Once Flush, Got Stuck With a Budget Shortfall

      by

      Lawmakers passed a preliminary budget that technically meets a legal deadline while they work out final details. State finances have fluctuated wildly in recent years.California’s state budget dwarfs the gross domestic products of some countries, supporting the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fifth-largest economy. When Golden State finances swing, there is an impact — and they can swing wildly. Two years ago, the state was projecting a record surplus; now, state lawmakers are confronting tens of billions of dollars in red ink.State law requires legislators to pass a balanced budget by June 15 each year or lose their pay and expense money. It’s typically a fraught process. This year’s negotiations have largely centered on how much social spending the state will cut and whether the state should postpone an increase in the minimum wage that was signed into law last year for nearly all health workers, many of whom work at state hospitals and clinics or at facilities whose patients are reimbursed through California’s version of Medicaid.On Thursday, the Legislature passed place-holder legislation that allows lawmakers to technically meet the deadline while talks with Gov. Gavin Newsom continue on some of the remaining sticking points. A final deal, to be written into a few supplemental bills, is expected in a few days. The budget takes effect on July 1.Why do California’s finances jump around so much?Volatility is a natural byproduct of California’s system of taxation. Designed to be progressive and fairer to low-income taxpayers, it relies heavily on taxes on personal income and capital gains.When rich taxpayers have a good year, the state government reaps a windfall. But when initial public offerings slump or the stock market reverses, revenue tanks. And the state has limited flexibility in raising revenue in times of shortfall because, in most cases, the law requires a two-thirds supermajority in the Legislature to pass a tax increase.What has the state done to manage the volatility of its finances?Californians have chipped away for some time at the state’s budget dysfunction, which used to be much worse. In 2004, voters passed a constitutional amendment requiring the state to reserve 3 percent of general fund revenue every year, regardless of the state’s economic performance. But the reserve fund barely got off the ground before the 2008 financial collapse slammed the state.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      In Wake of Election Defeat, Germany’s Olaf Scholz Will Slog On

      by

      Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his governing coalition emerged battered from the vote for the European Parliament. But a snap election seems unlikely.Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany heads to the Group of 7 summit meeting in Italy on Thursday as a diminished leader after Sunday’s battering in elections for the European Parliament.All three of the parties in his coalition government earned fewer votes than the conservative opposition — combined. The far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, showed itself to be the country’s second-most popular party.While an even worse defeat in France for President Emmanuel Macron at the hands of the far right prompted him to call fresh elections for the National Assembly, no such outcome is expected in Germany, where the results reverberate differently.Here’s a look at why.Snap Elections Are RareSome opposition leaders said the results showed such a lack of confidence in the chancellor and his coalition that he, too, should call new federal elections.The government replied definitively: no.The reason could be as simple as the difference between the French and German systems. Whereas President Macron could call a new election for the French Parliament, a new vote in Germany can only happen at the end of a complicated procedure triggered by a parliamentary majority vote of no confidence in the chancellor. That makes snap elections extremely rare in Germany — happening only three times in the 75-year history of the Federal Republic.While the three parties in the coalition government took a beating on the E.U. level, at home they still have a majority of seats in the German Parliament. As unpopular as the coalition is, then, it is most likely to slog on, and hope that it can turn things around before the next regular federal election in 2025.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More