National Debt (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares199 Views

    Once a G.O.P. Rallying Cry, Debt and Deficits Fall From the Party’s Platform

    by

    Fiscal hawks are lamenting the transformation of the party that claimed to prize fiscal restraint and are warning of dire economic consequences.When Donald J. Trump ran for president in 2016, the official Republican platform called for imposing “firm caps on future debt” to “accelerate the repayment of the trillions we now owe.”When Mr. Trump sought a second term in 2020, the party’s platform pummeled Democrats for refusing to help Republicans rein in spending and proposed a constitutional requirement that the federal budget be balanced.Those ambitions were cast aside in the platform that the Republican Party unveiled this week ahead of its convention. Nowhere in the 16-page document do the words “debt” or “deficit” as they relate to the nation’s grim fiscal situation appear. The platform included only a glancing reference to slashing “wasteful” spending, a perennial Republican talking point.To budget hawks who have spent years warning that the United States is spending more than it can afford, the omissions signaled the completion of a Republican transformation from a party that once espoused fiscal restraint to one that is beholden to the ideology of Mr. Trump, who once billed himself the “king of debt.”“I am really shocked that the party that I grew up with is now a party that doesn’t think that debt and deficits matter,” said G. William Hoagland, the former top budget expert for Senate Republicans. “We’ve got a deficit deficiency syndrome going on in our party.”The U.S. national debt is approaching $35 trillion and is on pace to top $56 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At that point, the United States would be spending about as much on interest payments to its lenders — $1.7 trillion — as it does on Medicare.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

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Haley’s Policy Pitch Recalls a Bygone Era Before Trump’s Rise

      by

      Nikki Haley’s calls for muscular international engagement and cuts to future Social Security benefits have elicited withering attacks from Donald J. Trump. They used to be Republican orthodoxy.Nikki Haley is appealing to voters with policies that recall an era when the Republican Party stood for a fiscal conscience and foreign policy leadership, at a time when the most sacred of federal programs and the international alliances that built the post-World War II era are under enormous strain.But the voice of contemporary Republican politics, Donald J. Trump, has been there to attack those appeals virtually ever day. On Tuesday, the voters of New Hampshire may decide whether the party can find a path back from Mr. Trump’s big government domestic policy and his isolationism abroad.Ms. Haley’s proposals to raise the retirement age for young workers and trim benefits for the wealthy while protecting Social Security and Medicare benefits for those at or near retirement age may sound familiar to any but the youngest voters. They’re the essentially same plans put forward by Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul D. Ryan in the losing presidential campaign of 2012, and are of a piece with then-President George W. Bush’s failed efforts to transform Social Security from a federally guaranteed pension system to something more akin to a private 401(k) plan.Mr. Romney’s 2012 proposals were taken from the bipartisan commission assembled to address the budget deficit during Barack Obama’s presidency. The recommendations went nowhere.Ms. Haley’s calls to stand by NATO and support Ukraine echo the foreign policies of every president since the Second World War, but particularly the Republicans, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.But Mr. Trump has been relentless in his attacks on all those policies. His suggestions that he could withdraw the United States from NATO prompted President Biden last month to sign legislation barring the president from unilaterally dropping the North Atlantic alliance.At a rally in Concord, N.H., Friday night, he portrayed Ms. Haley as someone who “wants to wipe out your Social Security,” raise the retirement age to 75, “and then you’re dead.”A Trump radio ad placed in New Hampshire on Friday said Ms. Haley’s “devious plan” would “shockingly change the rules” on federal programs for older Americans by raising the retirement age. And a television ad, titled “Threat From Within” and placed the day before, featured retirees looking stricken as they hear that “Haley’s plan cuts Social Security benefits for 82 percent of Americans,” before being reassured, “Trump will never let that happen.”The ads’ claims are false. The 82 percent figure stems from the total number of Americans eligible for Social Security, and Ms. Haley has said repeatedly that she would change nothing for current recipients or those close to eligibility.Republicans are used to coming under fire for the types of ideas that Ms. Haley is pushing. But this time, the fire is coming from the party’s de facto leader.“Whenever you discuss Social Security in a rational way, you’ve immediately gotten skewered, usually by the left,” said Judd Gregg, a retired Republican senator from New Hampshire who made long-term deficit reduction his main cause in Congress. “But in this case it’s by Donald Trump.”Mr. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have been pushing their own form of fiscal discipline, portraying an end to aid for Ukraine and domestic spending cuts as deficit reduction.Former President Donald J. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have been pushing their own form of fiscal discipline, couching ending aid to Ukraine and other domestic spending cuts as deficit reduction.Doug Mills/The New York TimesIn truth, their target for cuts mathematically could never put a dent in the federal deficit, which is expected to swell to nearly $1.7 trillion in the fiscal year that ends this Sept. 30, up from $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2023.About 85 percent of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, other entitlement programs like veterans benefits, the military and interest on the national debt — none of which are on Mr. Trump’s target list. That leaves just 15 percent of total spending, for education, law enforcement, transportation, medical and other scientific research, energy, national parks, and foreign assistance.And with interest rates at their current high levels, even liberal economists worry that if Washington doesn’t start addressing the red ink, the rising cost of paying the government’s debts will crowd out other programs, stifle private investment and hurt the nation’s long-term future. Already, interest payments reached $659 billion last year, the fourth largest item in the federal budget.“In 10 years, the government will be spending more on interest on the national debt than on defense,” warned Thomas Kahn, who was the Democrats’ staff director on the House Budget Committee for 20 years. “The reality is the national debt is out of control, and both parties will need to make politically painful decisions.”Ms. Haley has not broached the ultimate painful decision for Republicans, raising taxes, but she has hit Mr. Trump repeatedly for adding $8 trillion to the federal debt while in office, after promising in the 2016 campaign that he would not only balance the budget but would pay off the debt, which surpassed $34 trillion over the holiday season.Those attacks appear to have delivered only glancing blows to Mr. Trump’s dominance. The former president won the Iowa caucuses on Monday in a landslide, with Ms. Haley a distant third. Polls point to a narrower Trump victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, then a steep uphill climb for Ms. Haley ahead of the South Carolina primary next month in her home state.But like a modern-day Cassandra, Ms. Haley has not flinched from her warnings that the nation must act now to curtail spending rationally in the largest government programs, Social Security and Medicare, or face more painful, chaotic cuts in the future.“I have seen the commercials you’ve seen,” she told voters on Wednesday in Rochester, N.H. “I will always tell you the truth.”The truth is not pretty. The trustees of Social Security say if nothing is done, the main Social Security program, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, will deplete its reserves in 2033, which could be the end of a Haley second term. At that point, Social Security would have to rely only on the money coming in from taxes each year. Promised benefits would have to be cut by 23 percent, not for future retirees that Ms. Haley wants to target but for those already drawing benefits.“The only person who wants to cut Social Security is Trump,” said Nachama Soloveichik, the Haley campaign communications director. “Trump’s refusal to save Social Security means 100 percent of Americans will face a 23 percent cut in Social Security benefits in less than 10 years.”Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, dismissed such criticism as still more evidence of Mr. Trump’s righteousness.“Nikki Haley is spiraling out of control and is now resorting to outright lies because she knows her position of increasing the age for Social Security and slashing retirements is an untenable position,” he said. “She should look deep down inside and really address why she wants to throw hard-working Americans off a financial cliff.” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Why Our “Great” Economy Is Making Young Americans Grumpy

      by

      As a part-time commentator on things economic, I’m often asked a seemingly straightforward question: If the economy is so good, why are Americans so grumpy?By many measures — unemployment, inflation, the stock market — the economy is strong. Yet only 23 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction, a strong headwind for President Biden’s approval ratings. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s formidable base of disgruntled voters endures.As I’ve engaged with my many interlocutors, I’ve concluded that voters have valid reasons for their negativity. In my view, blame two culprits: one immediate and impacting everybody, and another that particularly affects young people and is coming into view like a giant iceberg. Both sit atop the leaderboard of reasons for the sour national mood.While inflation has provided the proximate trigger for unhappy feelings, an understandable grimness about our broader economic prospects, particularly for younger Americans, is playing a major part. 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?  More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Fact-Checking Mike Pence on the Campaign Trail

      by

      The former vice president has made misleading claims about abortion, fiscal policy and military spending.Since beginning his long-shot presidential campaign in June, former Vice President Mike Pence has struggled to gain traction among Republican primary voters.Mr. Pence has consistently polled in the single digits behind the two leading contenders: his onetime running mate, former President Donald J. Trump, and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. The former vice president has broken with them most starkly on their approaches to Social Security and Medicare. He has also carved out clear positions supporting a 15-week national abortion ban and wholeheartedly backing American involvement in the war in Ukraine.Mr. Pence has made some inaccurate claims along the way. Here’s a fact check of some of his recent remarks on the campaign trail.AbortionWhat Mr. Pence Said“I did, this week, call on every other candidate for the Republican nomination to support a minimum standard of a 15-week ban on abortion at the national level that would align American law with most of the countries in Europe that literally ban abortion after 12 to 15 weeks. Our laws at the national level today are more aligned with North Korea, China and Iran than with other Western countries in Europe.”— in a June interview on Fox News SundayThis is misleading. Mr. Pence’s comparison is overly simplistic and glosses over how abortion laws in Europe work in practice. It is also worth noting that many European countries are moving toward relaxing abortion restrictions, not imposing additional ones, as The Upshot has reported.Of some four dozen countries in Europe, almost all have legalized elective abortion before 10 to 15 weeks of pregnancy. All of these countries allow abortions after the gestational limit if the mother’s life is in danger and about half do so for cases involving sexual violence — two exceptions that Mr. Pence has said he also supports. But many also allow for broader exceptions, like the socioeconomic circumstances or mental health of the mother, which Mr. Pence’s proposal does not include.In Britain, for example, an abortion must be approved by two doctors, but those requests are generally granted up to 24 weeks. In Denmark and Germany, exceptions for gestational limits of 12 weeks are made for mental and physical health as well as living conditions.At least three countries also have more permissive gestational cutoffs than Mr. Pence’s proposal: Iceland at 22 weeks, the Netherlands at 24 weeks and Sweden at 18 weeks.In contrast, China allows elective abortions without specifying gestational limits in its national laws, according to the World Health Organization. China also has said in recent years that it will aim to reduce the number of “medically unnecessary” abortions, and at least one province has prohibited abortions after 14 weeks.North Korea’s laws on abortion are unclear. In 2015, the authorities issued a directive barring doctors from performing abortions, according to the World Health Organization, but “there are no documents after 2015” on the legality of the procedure.In the United States, after the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion last summer, the legal status of abortion varies widely from state to state. In some, the procedure is banned with no exceptions, and in others it is enshrined as a right with no gestational limits. A spokesman for Mr. Pence cited nine such states as exceptionally nonrestrictive.Fiscal policyWhat Mr. Pence Said“Well, first off, look, Joe Biden’s policy on our national debt is insolvency. And, sadly, my former running mate’s policy is identical to Joe Biden’s. Both of them say they’re not even going to talk about common sense and compassionate reforms to entitlements to spare future generations of a mountain range of debt.”— in the Fox News Sunday interviewThis is exaggerated. Asked about his calls to overhaul Social Security and Medicare, Mr. Pence criticized Mr. Trump’s and Mr. Biden’s approaches to the social programs as irresponsible. While both have said they would not cut benefits, only Mr. Biden has proposed tax increases to shore up both programs. But equating that position to one of accepting total insolvency is overstated.Currently, Social Security and Medicare both face financial shortfalls. The fund that pays for Social Security retirement benefits is projected to be depleted by 2033, and the fund that pays hospitals for Medicare patients will be exhausted in 2031. At those points, the funds will be able to pay for only 77 percent of retirement benefits and 89 percent of scheduled fees to hospitals.During the 2020 campaign, Mr. Biden proposed increasing taxes on high-income earners to pay for additional Social Security benefits. The extra funding would reduce the program’s financial shortfall, though the revenue would not close the gap entirely. While his latest presidential budget, released in March, does not mention that proposal, it does include a plan to extend the solvency of Medicare by 25 years by imposing higher taxes on the wealthy.Mr. Trump’s position on social safety net programs is a bit harder to pin down. In January 2020, he said he would be willing to consider cuts to the social safety nets “at some point” — though he quickly tried to walk back his comments and vowed to protect Social Security. His last presidential budget proposal, in February 2020, did not cut benefits to either program, but sought Medicare savings through a dozen tweaks like reducing payments to providers and reducing the cost of prescription drugs.More recently, Mr. Trump vowed in a speech in March at the Conservative Political Action Conference that “we are never going back” to proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age or cut Medicare benefits. But Mr. Trump has not yet outlined his stance on either program in more detail or addressed their solvency issues in this campaign cycle.The Pence campaign argued that neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Biden has a current plan for Social Security, and that Mr. Biden’s plan for Medicare just delays the financial shortfall.Mr. Pence has made misleading claims about abortion, fiscal policy and military spending.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesClassified documentsWhat Mr. Pence Said“I mean, when I informed the Department of Justice that we had classified materials potentially in our home, they were at my home. The F.B.I. was on my front doorstep the next day. And what we found out was that, when Joe Biden apparently alerted the Department of Justice, 80 days later, they showed up at his office.”— in a CNN town hall in JuneThis is exaggerated. Upon the discovery of classified documents in their personal residences, Mr. Pence and Mr. Biden both cooperated with government inquiries. Mr. Pence has a point that the Justice Department’s responses to the discoveries were not identical, but he is overstating the differences.In Mr. Biden’s case, the searches occurred a few weeks — not three months — after the discovery of classified documents. In Mr. Pence’s case, the search occurred about three weeks later.On Nov. 2, lawyers for Mr. Biden discovered classified documents at the offices of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, a think tank in Washington. On the same day, according to Biden administration officials, the lawyers alerted the National Archives and Records Administration, which is responsible for securing such documents. The next day, the National Archives retrieved the documents and referred the matter to the Justice Department. The F.B.I. searched the think tank in mid-November.On Dec. 20, Mr. Biden’s aides discovered a second set of classified documents at his home in Wilmington, Del. The same day, they alerted the U.S. attorney leading the investigation about the discovery. A month later, on Jan. 20, the F.B.I. searched the residence and seized additional documents. And on Feb. 1, the F.B.I. searched Mr. Biden’s vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Del., but did not find additional classified documents.The discovery of classified documents in Mr. Biden’s possession prompted aides for Mr. Pence to search his home in Indiana out of caution. They found about a dozen documents with classified markings on Jan. 16 and alerted the National Archives to the discovery in a letter dated Jan. 18. The Justice Department, rather than the records agency, then retrieved the documents from Mr. Pence’s home on Jan. 19. Nearly a month later, on Feb. 10, the F.B.I. searched Mr. Pence’s home and found one additional document.The Pence campaign argued that the Justice Department, in directly requesting the documents from Mr. Pence, bypassed the standard procedures, which did not occur in Mr. Biden’s case.Unlike the Biden and Trump cases, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland did not appoint a special counsel to investigate Mr. Pence’s handling of classified materials. The Justice Department has also declined to prosecute Mr. Pence while the inquiry into Mr. Biden remains ongoing.Funding for the militaryWhat Mr. Pence Said“Since Joe Biden took office, he’s been working to cut military spending.”— at the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa in JulyThis is false. Mr. Biden’s annual budgets have generally asked for more funding for the military, and actual spending has increased each year.Mr. Biden’s first budget, released in 2021, proposed $715 billion for the Pentagon, essentially keeping funding level. That was a 1.6 percent increase from the previous year and a 0.4 percent decrease when adjusted for inflation. In December of that year, he signed into law a $770 billion defense package.After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Mr. Biden’s proposals and congressional appropriators amped up military spending even more.The budget he released in 2022 requested $773 billion in military spending, a nearly 10 percent increase from the previous year. He eventually signed into law an $858 billion spending policy bill.And Mr. Biden’s latest budget, released in March, asked for $842 billion for the military, a 3.2 percent increase from the previous year, and $886 billion total for national defense. That legislation is currently going through the appropriations process in Congress. The Pence campaign argued that this amounted to a cut, as the rate of inflation outstrips the rate of increase.At the Iowa event, Mr. Pence cited Mr. Biden’s debt ceiling deal with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy as an example of a proposed 1 percent cut to the military. Under that deal, military spending is set at the president’s proposed amount of $886 billion and would rise to $895 billion in 2025. But all spending, for both the military and domestic programs, would be subject to a 1 percent cut if Congress does not pass annual spending bills by January.We welcome suggestions and tips from readers on what to fact-check on email and Twitter. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Generation of Women Named for Connie Chung

      by

      More from our inbox:The Dangerous Debt Limit DebateRon DeSantis, AuthoritarianForming a Community With Homeless NeighborsU.S. Role in Sex Exploitation in South KoreaConnie Chung, center, is one of the most famous Asian women in the U.S. Connie Aramaki for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “I Got My Name From Connie Chung. So Did They,” by Connie Wang (Opinion guest essay, May 14), about the many Asian women named after the TV journalist:It feels strange to know that there are so many Asian Connies out there, all close in age range in our 30s and 40s. But it’s a good strange feeling. It feels as if I have serendipitously entered a vast sisterhood, where the profound bond among us was formed by the influence of one woman on our mothers over 30 years ago.In my family, watching Connie Chung host “CBS Evening News” in the early ’90s was a family event. There were barely any Asian faces on TV at the time, let alone on a major news program. Connie Chung stood out in every way.“You can’t be what you can’t see.” When Ms. Chung came on the screen, my mom saw what was possible for the next generation right in front of her, far from the sights of Asian women working in menial jobs that defined my mom’s day-to-day life as a new immigrant.So when I suggested Connie as my English name, my mother liked it right away. “Keep it. It’s good, it’s just like Connie Chung,” she would say. With that choice of a name, my mom had poured all her hopes for me. Little did I know then that across the country people were being named Connie for that very same reason.Times are different now. There is a lot more diversity in the media and other professions. While we still have much work ahead of us, let us take a moment to celebrate this progress.Connie WuSan FranciscoTo the Editor:My daughter was adopted from Guangdong Province, China, in 1998 when she was 13 months old. She has no memory of the following story except through my retelling.It was a spring afternoon in the year 2000 at the Museum of Life and Science in Durham, N.C. My toddler and I took our places on the open-air train for a ride through the grounds.“It’s who you think it is,” the ticket taker whispered, nodding over her shoulder. Two seats ahead, surrounded by visitors, were Maury Povich and Connie Chung.Celebrity watching prevailed over scenery and animal sighting during that ride. Afterward, as a cluster of visitors lingered with Mr. Povich, Ms. Chung strolled ahead alone. But not for long. My daughter, rarely more than an inch from my side, leery of all strangers, let go of my hand and trotted up to grab Connie’s leg. Surprised, smiling, Ms. Chung lifted my daughter into her arms.Connie Wang’s wonderful article describes the surprise that Ms. Chung expressed when told: “There are so many of us out here. Named after you.” Something about that surprise, of not knowing her effect on others, stays with me.Anne TooheyChapel Hill, N.C.The Dangerous Debt Limit Debate Kiersten EssenpreisTo the Editor:Re “Ignoring the Debt Limit Would Be Dangerous” (Opinion guest essay, May 15):I disagree with my longtime friend Michael McConnell about the politics of the debt ceiling.Of course Congress has the power of the purse. But the problem here is not Congress as a whole; it is a slim majority in the House. And that majority is controlled by a handful of its most extreme members.The debt ceiling debate is certainly not politics as usual. It is a threat to destroy the country’s finances and its position of world leadership unless the Senate and the president give in to that faction’s extreme demands.Neither the country nor the Constitution can function if every choke point in the system of checks and balances is exploited for maximum leverage without regard to consequences. If one side is willing to wreck the economy unless it gets its way, why not both sides? If one faction, why not many different factions with inconsistent demands?The House, the Senate and the president bargain over spending in the budget and appropriations process, not through threats to destroy the economy if I don’t get my way.Douglas LaycockCharlottesville, Va.The writer is a professor at the University of Virginia Law School.Ron DeSantis, AuthoritarianGov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has long been a presumptive but undeclared rival to former President Donald J. Trump.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesTo the Editor:The efforts by Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida to harass Disney for exercising its rights of free speech and to ban books from the classroom that do not support his political or racial beliefs are the mark of an authoritarian tyrant. They show that right-wing politicians are the perpetrators, not the victims, of “cancel culture.”Republicans should consider how they would react if a Democratic governor retaliated against a corporation for opposing a Democratic program or embarked upon a program to ban conservative books.This is not the sort of person who belongs anywhere near the White House, and this is not the sort of person whom anyone should support. Hard to believe that Mr. DeSantis attended two fine academic institutions — Yale and Harvard Law — and learned so little about free speech, democracy and American constitutional values.David S. ElkindGreenwich, Conn.The writer is a lawyer.Forming a Community With Homeless NeighborsIntensive mobile treatment teams meet mentally ill clients where they are. Chris Payton and Sonia Daley visited M in Lower Manhattan.To the Editor:“In New York City, Making the Invisible Visible” (The Story Behind the Story, May 7) yields a question: To what extent is the mental illness we see in homeless people the result of — not the cause of — their being homeless?Hundreds of people silently pass them by each day, turning away, ignoring a hand held out for a donation. In plain sight, day after day, they live in public solitary confinement, the sort that is now being attacked in the courts as an inhumane, cruel and unusual punishment that often leads to mental illness when used in prisons.A civic organization I belong to in Florida recently began refurbishing a public park, long known as the home of the homeless in our city, by organizing periodic cleanups by volunteers and painting a mural honoring a local eccentric woman, long dead.After a while, the homeless folks began approaching our volunteers and the painter, viewing the art and then striking up tentative conversations. One homeless woman turned out to be an amateur painter, and a small portion of the mural was turned over to her to design and paint.Within weeks, the homeless frequenting the park began policing it — picking up trash and chastising people who dropped it. And, most important, collectively and individually, some bizarre behaviors faded away, replaced by social interaction.I now wonder what the results would be if the public at large began acknowledging the homeless, even by saying, “Hello,” or “I don’t have any cash with me today, sorry,” rather than simply walking on.As someone who lived in New York City for 30 years, I know that the city is filled with visible-yet-invisible people and am, frankly, ashamed that I didn’t catch onto this notion earlier.Stephen PhillipsSt. Petersburg, Fla.U.S. Role in Sex Exploitation in South KoreaTo the Editor:Re “South Korea Created a Brutal Sex Trade for American Soldiers” (front page, May 3):As your article so painfully makes clear, the brutal forced prostitution of young and vulnerable South Korean women and girls was caused not just by the government of South Korea but by the United States as well.There is much that the U.S. can and should do. It should be paying reparations. The government and the armed services chiefs should offer apologies to the women who went through this and to their families.And those who are in charge of curbing sexual harassment in the military today should redouble their efforts as they grow to understand just how systemic sexual assaults and misogyny have been in the armed forces for so long.Jean ZornFort Lauderdale, Fla. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Bullying, and Suicide, in High School

      by

      More from our inbox:Fans of Netflix DVDs Offer Sad FarewellsFacing Up to the Spiraling U.S. DebtIf the G.O.P. Wants to Win, It Needs to Pick Candidates Who Can Sarah Blesener for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Elite School Admits to Failure After Suicide of a Bullied Student” (front page, May 1), about the Lawrenceville School’s reckoning with the suicide of a student last year:Reading the article about Jack Reid’s suicide brought back unpleasant memories, as I attended the Lawrenceville School between 1968 and 1971.I was a shy, timid and closeted — even to myself — gay man. Although I received a great education, and went on to have a successful career as a judge, my three years at Lawrenceville were some of my worst.During my first year, I was called a homophobic slur in Spanish by a housemate, and another housemate wanted to fight me for no particular reason, probably because I was perceived as weak. The assistant housemaster sensed my unhappiness and asked me if I was OK, and, unfortunately, I answered that I was.To deal with my unhappiness and loneliness, I would calm myself by shaking my legs and arms before I went to sleep, in addition to gleefully marking a big “X” on my calendar after I completed another day of extreme misery.In fairness to Lawrenceville, I never disclosed my unhappiness. My heart goes out to the Reid family.I commend Lawrenceville for the steps the school is taking, albeit possibly to avoid litigation.David L. PiperMinneapolisTo the Editor:The story about Jack Reid’s suicide hit home. In the 1960s I was a ninth-grade transfer student. This particular boy spotted me as an easy target in civics class, relentlessly teasing, taunting and humiliating me, five days a week. Students laughed at me, calling me names throughout the halls.The look of shame in the eyes of the teacher was transparent, yet he never said or did anything in my defense. I was already afraid and insecure. Those daily taunts and humiliation destroyed the little self-worth I had.Twice I attempted suicide. My mother was beside herself. She pulled me out of that school and enrolled me in a private Catholic school. I somehow made it through those years only because of my mother’s love and concern rather than anything the school ever did.Bravo to the Lawrenceville School for publicly stating, “We acknowledge that more should have been done to protect Jack.” It’s long overdue for schools to finally step up and take responsibility rather than turning a continual blind eye.Marge KellerChicagoFans of Netflix DVDs Offer Sad Farewells Illustration by The New York Times. Images by Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Here’s Looking at You, DVD.com,” by Pamela Paul (column, April 28):Thanks to Ms. Paul for her eloquent, bittersweet ode to DVD.com. This year marked my 15th year as a Netflix subscriber, and while my queue is a fraction of hers (I have a thing with lists — no more than 10 on there at once), my recent mandate for managing my movies has been to include only those that are not available on any streaming service. (“Altered States” was a recent rental for me, too; maybe Ms. Paul and I had the same disc!)I will treasure these last few months of deliveries. Farewell, red envelopes, but luckily I can fill the void with a combination of fond memories and frequent trips to the New York Public Library DVD stacks (and pray to the lords of corporate do-gooding that Netflix donates its DVD inventory to libraries).Kevin ParksNew YorkTo the Editor:One point Pamela Paul didn’t mention is the superior image and sound quality of DVDs, especially Blu-ray. The colors are much richer, the blacks are blacker and the audio is much fuller. Filmmakers put incredible effort into the look and sound of their art.Luckily I live a few blocks from one of San Francisco’s last video rental stores, Video Wave of Noe Valley. Not only does Colin Hutton, the proprietor, carry hundreds of titles unavailable via the internet, but he also has an encyclopedic knowledge of the films.Whenever I want to watch a movie in which the cinematography and audio design are critical, I walk down the street to pick up a shiny disc.Michael FasmanSan FranciscoThe writer is a filmmaker.To the Editor:I loved this piece. It echoed my feelings and experiences with DVD.com. But there is another layer no one seems to be talking about.I live in a rural area of western North Carolina. I have no cellular service at my house, and my internet connection is via a very slow satellite service and has a data cap. Both the slowness of the connection and the low data cap prevent us from being able to stream anything but fairly short YouTube videos. And those eat up our data allotment pretty quickly. Forget trying to stream an HD movie.As Pamela Paul indicated, we won’t purchase a DVD that we would only watch once.I’m sure we aren’t the only family in America in this situation. So what are we to do? It’s depressing and frustrating.Kimberly Baldwin WhitmireFranklin, N.C.Facing Up to the Spiraling U.S. DebtSenate Republicans hold a news conference outside the Capitol to urge passage of legislation to raise the debt limit and cut federal spending.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Cowardice of the Deficit Scolds,” by Paul Krugman (column, May 9):It is time to face up to massive U.S. debt that both Presidents Trump and Biden helped accelerate.Many years ago, Mr. Krugman and others accused President George W. Bush and me of trying to privatize Social Security. The rhetoric poisoned the well for Social Security reform, which even Mr. Biden was suggesting was then needed. Reforms would have greatly improved today’s U.S. financial position.The “scolds” I know believe that long-term deficit reduction requires lower expenditures and higher revenues. Having managed four government agencies, I would add better management by political appointees and Congress to proactively address the challenges.We have to raise the debt ceiling, but we need to stop the U.S. debt doubling over the next 10 years. That is not “extortion” or “blackmail.” It is acting to safeguard America’s future.James B. LockhartGreenwich, Conn.The writer is a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He was director of the Federal Housing Financial Agency and the Office of the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, principal deputy commissioner of Social Security and director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.If the G.O.P. Wants to Win, It Needs to Pick Candidates Who CanRon DeSantis has cast himself as more electable than Donald J. Trump, but for years Republican primary voters have cast ballots with their hearts, opting for hard-liners who lose in general elections.Scott Eisen/Getty Images; Christopher Lee for The New York TimesTo the Editor:“DeSantis’s Electability Pitch Wobbles, Despite G.O.P. Losses Under Trump” (news article, April 23) describes the angst many Republicans feel about the electability of their candidates and the fact that they are losing many elections they feel were winnable.The answer to their problem should be very evident: The majority of Americans favor sensible gun control, including the banning of assault rifles. The majority of Americans favor women’s reproductive rights. The majority of Americans deplore the vicious tone of American politics that prevails today. The majority of Americans do not believe the idiotic conspiracy theories that abound.Yet the Republican Party continues to run candidates who cater to the morally and financially bankrupt National Rifle Association, who seek to eliminate completely a woman’s right to choose, who sow chaos with their nasty political rhetoric and who continue to push the completely ridiculous lie that Donald Trump won in 2020.If the Republican Party ever wants to regain its status as a mainstream, serious participant in governance, it needs to jettison these fringe types it continues to trot out as candidates.Bill GottdenkerMountainside, N.J. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Asked About Age, Biden Says He Knows ‘More Than the Vast Majority of People’

      by

      The president also said that he was not yet prepared to lean on the 14th Amendment to compel the government to pay its debt amid a showdown with House Republicans.In his first interview since announcing that he would seek a second term, President Biden sought to downplay concerns about his age by saying he was the most experienced person to have ever run for the presidency.“I have acquired a hell of a lot of wisdom and know more than the vast majority of people,” Mr. Biden told the MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle in an interview that aired on Friday night. “And I’m more experienced than anybody that’s ever run for the office. And I think I’ve proven myself to be honorable as well as also effective.”Mr. Biden, who would be 86 at the end of a second term should he win, has in recent days tried to reassure voters about his age, presenting it as an asset rather than a hindrance to running. In the interview, he also said that Vice President Kamala Harris “hasn’t gotten the credit she deserves,” and he promoted her past work as attorney general of California and as a senator.The wide-ranging interview showed a president seeking to make his case for re-election amid looming potential crises, including a deployment of American troops to the country’s southern border and a federal government that is potentially weeks away from defaulting on its debt.Compared with his predecessors, Mr. Biden has given far fewer news conferences and rarely sits for interviews with journalists, instead opting for friendly celebrity interviews or softball social-media videos. His interview with Ms. Ruhle, who hosts a show on a network that leans sympathetic to Mr. Biden and Democratic causes, was broadcast at 10 p.m. on a Friday.In the interview, Mr. Biden said he was not yet prepared to invoke a clause in the 14th Amendment that would compel the federal government to continue issuing new debt should the government run out of cash, an event that Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned this week could come as soon as June 1. “I’ve not gotten there yet,” he told Ms. Ruhle.Republicans are demanding major spending cuts before raising the debt limit. But Mr. Biden has repeatedly said that he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling, pointing out that it was raised several times under former President Donald J. Trump without issue. In his interview, he reiterated that he was willing to negotiate on federal spending — as long as it was separate from debt-ceiling negotiations.“This is not your father’s Republican Party,” Mr. Biden said, repeating claims he has made before about extremists within the G.O.P. “This is a different, a different group. And I think that we have to make it clear to the American people that I am prepared to negotiate in detail with their budget. How much are you going to spend? How much are you going to tax? Where can we cut?”Mr. Biden is supposed to meet with Republican and Democratic leaders at the White House next week to discuss a path forward. He will need a negotiating partner in Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who last week marshaled a bill to raise the debt ceiling while cutting spending and unraveling major elements of Mr. Biden’s domestic agenda. The legislation is considered dead on arrival, but it has given Mr. McCarthy the opportunity to say he has done his part.The president said in the interview that Mr. McCarthy was an “honest man” but that he had “sold away everything” to the far-right wing of his party to become House speaker.“He’s agreed to things that maybe he believes, but are just extreme,” Mr. Biden said.Mr. Biden defended his decision to send 1,500 troops to the border with Mexico as the ending of pandemic-era immigration restrictions threatens a surge of migrants, saying that the troops would not be there to “enforce the law” but to “free up the border agents that need to be on the border.”He also said that his son Hunter, who is the subject of a federal investigation into his business dealings, was innocent and that he did not think his son’s legal problems would harm his presidency.“My son has done nothing wrong,” Mr. Biden said. “I trust him. I have faith in him. And it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The G.O.P.’s Fiscal Hawks Fly Far Away From Deficit Fights

      by

      After a decade of rising deficits and soaring debt, the top White House contenders, Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, show little interest in battling over the nation’s finances.The first skirmish of the Republican presidential primary of 2024 broke through this weekend. It was not over a traditional theme of conservative politics, such as national defense, or more contemporary issues like immigration or “woke” social policy.Instead, the political organizations of former President Donald J. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida put their candidates forward as the guardians of the Democratic Party’s most precious policy legacies: Social Security and Medicare.The jousting between Mr. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, and Mr. DeSantis, his undeclared and closest rival, signaled that after a decade of rising deficits, soaring debt and political silence from both parties, any grappling with the nation’s worsening fiscal condition will not be shaped by the Republican White House contenders. The party that once prided itself on cleareyed fiscal truth-telling — a message marred, without doubt, by successive tax-cutting — is still having none of it.And that signal came at a most inopportune moment, as House Republican leaders are girding for a fight over the government’s borrowing limit, linking any increase in the debt ceiling with tough spending cuts that the leaders of the party in 2024 show no interest in.“The facts are still on our side, and history is on our side,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who guided the fiscal policies of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “It’s just a bad era.”There was nothing particularly Republican in the exchange of advertisements posted by the super PACs of Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis. On Friday, Make America Great Again Inc., a Trump-aligned political action committee, started running an advertisement declaring, “DeSantis has his dirty fingers all over senior entitlements, like cutting Medicare, slashing Social Security, even raising our retirement age.”The DeSantis-linked Never Back Down PAC responded by accusing Mr. Trump of “repeating lies about Social Security,” then showed Mr. DeSantis saying, “We’re not going to mess with Social Security as Republicans.”With that backdrop, Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California went on Monday to the New York Stock Exchange to try to prod President Biden into negotiations on the deficit, telling leaders in finance, “I want to talk to you about the debate that is not happening in Washington but should be happening over our national debt,” then adding, “America deserves to hear the truth.”The Republican House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, on Monday at the New York Stock Exchange.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesThe problem with that truth is the math: With Republicans vowing once again not to raise taxes, exempting Social Security and Medicare from spending cuts would mean everything else funded by the federal government — the military, veterans’ programs, Medicaid, medical research, education, energy development — would need to be cut by 52 percent to balance the budget by 2033, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan research and advocacy group that is highly critical of both parties.If the Social Security and Medicare exemption was extended to the military at a time when Republicans want to confront the threat from China, everything else needs to be cut by 70 percent. If veterans’ programs were also protected, Medicaid and a host of other programs — food stamps, NASA, the National Institutes of Health, agricultural subsidies, food safety inspections, federal student aid, air traffic controllers, weather forecasters, National Parks, health care for the poor and self-employed, and much more — would need to be cut by 78 percent.“It used to be that everybody fought for political giveaways, but in the end, everybody knew the truth, so there was room for trade-offs and hard compromises,” said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “There is no good, hard governance anymore.”It has been just over a decade since Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, selected as his running mate the party’s embodiment of hair-shirt policymaking, Paul D. Ryan. At the time, then-Representative Ryan did not flinch in his assertions that the retiring baby boom generation made benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare absolutely vital to the nation’s future.And as a House member a decade ago, Mr. DeSantis readily embraced what was then the mainstream Republican position, voting repeatedly for Ryan-style changes to Social Security and Medicare that went nowhere, and promoting the restructuring of entitlements to make them “sustainable over the long term.”But in the loss of the Romney-Ryan ticket in 2012, Mr. Trump saw a lesson for his own presidential aspirations. And four years later, the business executive and reality television star ran on the improbable pledge to balance the budget, pay off the entire federal debt and never ever cut Social Security and Medicare.Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney on their way to a rally in Denver in 2012.Stephen Crowley/The New York Times“Trump figured out in 2016 that an older, more working class, more populist party would become increasingly against fixing Social Security and Medicare, and he was right,” said Brian Riedl, who served as a budget adviser to former Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and is now a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute. “It’s clearly good politics to recast yourself as the defender of Social Security and Medicare. It’s just bad for the country.”Deficits rose every year of the Trump presidency, from the $590 billion he inherited in the 2016 fiscal year, to $670 billion in 2017, $780 billion in 2018, $980 billion the following year, then a staggering $3.13 trillion in the pandemic year of 2020. By Mr. Riedl’s calculations, Mr. Trump added $7.8 trillion in deficit spending over 10 years through legislation and executive orders during his four years.That Mr. Trump fulfilled none of his promises of fiscal rectitude did not seem to matter; fiscal policy hardly came up during the campaign of 2020 and has not exactly reverberated in the Biden years either.“Neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden has shown any interest in disciplining spending,” said Judd Gregg, a Republican and former New Hampshire senator who made a career of pushing for long-term deficit reduction. “But inevitably this comes to an end at some point — a herd of elephants coming over the horizon.”The herd is coming in two forms. The first is the aging baby boom generation, which is already driving up Social Security and Medicare costs. The number of Social Security recipients will rise from 44 million in 2010 to 73 million in 2030, raising Social Security spending from 4.8 percent of the economy to 5.9 percent.The second is interest on the national debt, which must cover interest rates that are rising after years of rock-bottom prices, driving up the cost of serving the government’s $31 trillion debt. After steep declines in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years that Mr. Biden bragged about on Tuesday, the federal deficit in the first half of 2023 reached $1.1 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, up $430 billion from the first half of the previous fiscal year. Interest payments rose from $219 billion to $308 billion, a 41 percent leap that put debt servicing nearly on par with military spending.“You can’t have interest payments that are higher than defense payments, yet that’s the track we’re on in the next five years,” Ms. MacGuineas said. “We’re the frog in the boiling water.” More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Highlights Economic Investments Ahead of Expected 2024 Announcement

      by

      The president has warned that a strong economy could be weakened under Republican leadership, a point he and a host of advisers will make at 20 events across the country in the coming weeks.DURHAM, N.C. — President Biden visited North Carolina on Tuesday and said Republicans would undermine his administration’s gains on American manufacturing, as the president began to sharpen his political message ahead of an expected re-election announcement.Mr. Biden spoke at Wolfspeed, a semiconductor manufacturer that recently announced a $5 billion investment to expand operations in the state, a move that would create about 1,800 jobs, according to the White House. The company, based in North Carolina, has deals to supply the material to General Motors, among other buyers.But Mr. Biden’s visit was less about semiconductors than it was about making an argument that he sees as key to a re-election bid — essentially, that the American economy has recovered since the coronavirus pandemic, his administration has helped keep it strong and Republican policies would undo that progress.“I’ve got news for you and for MAGA Republicans in Congress: Not on my watch,” Mr. Biden said, referring to the far-right wing of the party that is loyal to former President Donald J. Trump.The White House has argued for months that Mr. Biden has presided over a steady economy and strong job growth, but the data presents a more complicated reality: The high pace of job creation is undercut by a continued deceleration in wage increases, and there are growing concerns that the Federal Reserve may move to raise interest rates. The Biden administration has also tried to assuage fears of instability after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank this month.Mr. Biden’s visit to North Carolina was the start of three weeks of related events to be held across the country by the president and Vice President Kamala Harris, plus their spouses and a host of cabinet officials. The group plans to visit 20 states and will highlight investments in American manufacturing, supply chains and job-creation efforts, according to a summary of efforts sent by the White House.During his trip to Durham, Mr. Biden highlighted legislation passed last year, including the CHIPS and Science Act, which contains $52 billion in subsidies and tax credits for companies that manufacture chips in the United States. More than half of the amount is dedicated to helping companies build facilities for making, assembling and packaging some of the world’s more advanced chips. In his remarks, the president said that over $435 billion had been invested in American companies since he took office.“America’s coming back,” Mr. Biden said, standing beside Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, who traveled with him to Durham. “We are determined to lead the world in manufacturing semiconductors.”Ms. Raimondo, who is expected to participate in the tour over the coming weeks, told a crowd gathered at Wolfspeed that the pandemic had “opened all of our eyes” to the importance of maintaining the global supply chain and protecting competitive advantages in technology.“The truth of it is the United States was for a long time a manufacturing powerhouse,” she said. “Still is, but for a long time we took our eye off the ball, and we watched manufacturing leave our shores in search of cheap labor in Asia.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.The president spoke directly to people he said might feel “left behind” by technological changes, but said his administration would focus on programs that could train workers to produce technological projects without a college degree. Mr. Biden said the “vast majority” of jobs created by Wolfspeed would not require college degrees and could pay around $80,000.Events like the one held on Tuesday will provide Mr. Biden and his surrogates with an opportunity to hone his argument against Republicans.At the same time, a collision course looms in Washington over the debt ceiling.On Tuesday, Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, wrote a letter urging the president to negotiate on the federal debt limit. “With each passing day,” Mr. McCarthy wrote, “I am incredibly concerned that you are putting an already fragile economy in jeopardy by insisting upon your extreme position of refusing to negotiate any meaningful changes to out-of-control government spending.”Mr. Biden has said he will refuse to negotiate on the debt limit, pointing out that Republicans voted to raise the ceiling several times under his predecessor, Mr. Trump.“It’s time for Republicans to stop playing games, pass a clean debt ceiling bill and quit threatening our economic recovery,” Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement responding to Mr. McCarthy’s letter.In his own letter sent on Tuesday evening, Mr. Biden urged Mr. McCarthy and congressional Republicans to present a full budget proposal before Congress leaves for Easter recess.The president and his advisers have signaled that the situation would be worse under Republican leadership, a point he underscored in North Carolina. The White House says that companies have made $16 billion in private sector investment commitments since Mr. Biden took office, a development they have attributed to corporations taking advantage of tax breaks and federal funding that bolsters innovation.Mr. Biden has argued that the flow of money would be at stake if Republicans tried to repeal policies passed under his administration, including the Inflation Reduction Act. He has also said that individual Americans are at risk of losing access to lower health care, energy and internet costs that are provided for in the bills that were passed by a Democratic-majority Congress.“We’re not going to let them undo all the progress,” Mr. Biden said. More