United States Economy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Teachers Saved My Life. Why Do We Treat Them So Poorly?

      by

      I have attended commencements of all kinds throughout my career, and I can tell you that some of the best are in prisons.Over and over, I have spoken at these commencements with incarcerated men and women who acknowledge the awful choices or stupid mistakes they made, the strangers or loved ones they hurt, yet emerge from prison renewed through higher education. While 95 percent of the people incarcerated will come home one day, they often return to the same cycles that led them to prison in the first place. Through college coursework, they are able to reflect on their past, develop a clearer vision for their future and gain the skills to contribute to their families and communities.One student told me that pursuing college while incarcerated was the first time he had moral and academic credibility with his family. The potential for higher education in prison to change lives is the reason that I worked to expand these programs when I was the U.S. secretary of education and president of a national education civil rights organization, and do so now as chancellor of the State University of New York.I believe so deeply in the transformative power of education because teachers saved my life.When I was 8 years old, in October of 1983, my mother died suddenly from a heart attack. It was indescribably devastating. I then lived alone with my father, who was struggling with Alzheimer’s until he died when I was 12. During those years with my father, no one outside our home knew he was sick, and I didn’t know why he acted the way he did.Some nights he would talk to me; some nights he wouldn’t say a word. Other nights he would be sad or angry, or even violent. Home was scary and unstable, but I was blessed to have New York City public schoolteachers who made school a place that was safe, nurturing, academically rigorous and engaging.If not for Allan Osterweil, my teacher in fourth, fifth and sixth grade at P.S. 276 in Canarsie, Brooklyn, I would be in prison or dead. Amid the darkness of my home life, Mr. Osterweil gave me a sense of hope and purpose. In his classroom, we read The New York Times every day. We learned the capital and leader of every country in the world. We did productions of Shakespeare and Lewis Carroll.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

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Retirees Are Filing for Social Security Earlier. Why?

      by

      An additional 276,000 people filed for Social Security benefits so far this fiscal year, up 13% from a year ago. Anxiety appears to be a driver.The morning after his 67th birthday, Marty McGowan filed for Social Security. That wasn’t his original plan. He had intended to wait until he was 70 to claim benefits, in exchange for a heftier payment that would have yielded an extra $800 a month.But like other retirees in recent months, he was watching the Trump administration’s shake-up at the Social Security Administration during a time when the broader economic outlook appeared increasingly uncertain. Concerns about the economy and access to benefits nudged him to file earlier than he had anticipated, even if it might cost him over the long run.He wasn’t the only one: An additional 276,000 retirees claimed benefits on their earnings record this fiscal year through April, according to the Urban Institute, a research group, a 13 percent jump from the same period a year ago. Officials inside the Social Security Administration called the rise “dramatic,” and though there were some other reasons for the surge, program experts say anxiety appeared to play a meaningful role.“It is worrisome because for most people, claiming early is not a good decision,” said Jack Smalligan, a senior policy fellow at the Urban Institute. “They’re nervous about the threats to the Social Security Administration and their benefits, while simultaneously looking at their 401(k), if they have one, and worrying about that.”The Trump administration’s crusade to diminish the federal bureaucracy did not spare Social Security, which rattled insiders at the agency and Americans close to or in retirement. Many of them feared that job cuts and other policy changes could threaten their access to benefits, causing them to jam phone lines and overwhelm offices. Elon Musk, the tech billionaire whose Department of Government Efficiency drove many of the changes, continued to spread false claims about widespread fraud at the agency, which only added to the confusion.That situation, coupled with wider economic uncertainty, seemed to influence some retirees’ real-world financial decision-making. Agency officials acknowledged this during their recent operational meetings, along with other strains on the system.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

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What’s the Cost to Society of Pollution? Trump Says Zero.

      by

      The Trump administration has directed agencies to stop estimating the economic impact of climate change when developing policies and regulations.The White House has ordered federal agencies to stop considering the economic damage caused by climate change when writing regulations, except in cases where it is “plainly required” by law.The directive effectively shelves a powerful tool that has been used for more than two decades by the federal government to weigh the costs and benefits of a particular policy or regulation.The Biden administration had used the tool to strengthen limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, factories and oil refineries.Known as the “social cost of carbon,” the metric reflects the estimated damage from global warming, including wildfires, floods and droughts. It affixes a cost to the economy from one ton of carbon dioxide pollution, the main greenhouse gas that is heating the planet.When considering a regulation or policy to limit carbon pollution, policymakers have weighed the cost to an industry of meeting that requirement against the economic impact of that pollution on society.During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The first Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under the Biden administration, the cost was adjusted for inflation and jumped to $190 per ton.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

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Don’t Need a Deal.’ Top Trump Economic Adviser Is All in on His China Hardball

      by

      In a wide-ranging interview, Stephen Miran, the president of the chair of President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, said “volatility doesn’t necessarily mean anything greater for the long term.”The first 100 days of the second Trump administration have been a whirlwind. And Stephen Miran, the chair of President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, has been at the center of what he calls “the volatility.” Mr. Trump has raised import taxes to levels not seen since the 1930s. And trade talks to roll them back — or not — are in flux, leaving the trajectory of the U.S. economy, consumer prices and global trade in limbo.Miran, a Ph.D. economist trained at Harvard — who is renown for floating the idea of a Mar-a-Lago Accord to “restructure the global trading system” — has been put in the position of explaining the president’s thinking and ultimate goals.On Wednesday, just before the United States and Britain announced a framework for a trade agreement and ahead of trade talks this weekend between the administration and Chinese officials, Miran spoke with The Times’s Talmon Joseph Smith at his office next to the White House. And he stood by the president’s unconventional moves.The interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.You’ve said in public remarks that you are not on the negotiating team, but as an economist, do you believe that this country’s economy can sustain what the Treasury secretary has called the “embargo” levels of current tariffs on China?Yeah, so look, the president has acted with historic scope and speed to put American workers on fairer ground vis-à-vis our trading partners. I don’t think anybody could possibly say that the policy adjustment was not historic or extraordinary. And as a result, there’s been volatility in financial markets. There can also be volatility in economic data, but I think it’s important to understand that volatility doesn’t necessarily mean anything greater for the long term.And so is it possible that economic activity gets substituted from one month to another? Yeah. Are firms waiting to find out the outcomes of the negotiations? Yeah. Are they waiting to find out that the tax bill is being passed and that we’re going to avoid the biggest tax hike in history next year because the president’s 2017 tax cuts are not going to expire? Yeah, they’re waiting for that, too.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

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Bessent Pitches Skittish Investors to Bet on Trump’s Economic Plan

      by

      The Treasury secretary urged executives and entrepreneurs to look beyond the Trump administration’s trade agenda.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged skittish global business leaders on Monday to ignore President Trump’s economic naysayers and ramp up investment in the United States, defending an economic agenda that economists warn will slow economic growth and exacerbate inflation.Speaking to executives, entrepreneurs and policymakers, Mr. Bessent argued that the Trump administration’s economic plans go beyond trade policy and will pay off in the long run. He urged them to also focus on Mr. Trump’s plans to cut taxes and regulation, which he said would spur job creation and output.“Tariffs are engineered to encourage companies like yours to invest directly in the United States,” Mr. Bessent said in remarks at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles. “You’ll be glad you did — not only because we have the most productive work force in the world. But because we will soon have the most favorable tax and regulatory environment as well.”His comments came just hours after Mr. Trump ordered up new tariffs on foreign film producers, a decision that left many in Hollywood puzzled about how such a tax would work.The Treasury Secretary has been working to ease concerns among investors that Mr. Trump’s trade plans will destabilize the global economy. Mr. Trump last month levied tariffs on countries around the world and escalated a trade fight with China, which sent financial markets plunging.Since then, Mr. Bessent has been racing to negotiate trade deals with dozens of countries. He has also signaled that the China tariffs are not sustainable, offering hope that Mr. Trump would soon begin negotiations to lower them.”Our goal with trade policy is to level the playing field for our great American workers and companies,” Mr. Bessent said.The Trump administration is working closely with congressional Republicans ]on tax legislation that would extend the 2017 tax cuts and offer new tax breaks for overtime pay, tips and Social Security benefits. Mr. Bessent made the case on Monday that investors need to consider the broader agenda when thinking about where to park their money.Describing Mr. Trump’s policies as “mutually reinforcing,” Mr. Bessent said, “acting in concert, they push toward the same goal — to solidify our position as the home of global capital.”Investors have grown increasingly wary of Mr. Trump’s policies in recent months, with stocks, bonds and the dollar all showing signs of weakness as fund managers fret over the uncertainty surrounding Mr. Trump’s policymaking approach.The International Monetary Fund projected last month that global output will slow to 2.8 percent this year from 3.3 percent in 2024 and sharply downgraded its outlook for the U.S. economy.On Monday, Mr. Bessent said that Mr. Trump would prove “critics in establishment circles” wrong.“We have the world’s reserve currency, the deepest and most liquid markets, and the strongest property rights,” Mr. Bessent said. “For these reasons, the United States is the premier destination for international capital.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Wavers When Asked About Due Process Rights and His Constitutional Duties

      by

      President Trump repeatedly answered “I don’t know” when asked in a TV interview whether every person on American soil was entitled to due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.President Trump said in an interview that aired on Sunday that he did not know whether every person on American soil was entitled to due process, despite constitutional guarantees, and complained that adhering to that principle would result in an unmanageable slowdown of his mass deportation program.The revealing exchange, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” was prompted by the interviewer Kristen Welker asking Mr. Trump if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio that citizens and noncitizens in the United States were entitled to due process.“I don’t know,” Mr. Trump replied. “I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.”Ms. Welker reminded the president that the Fifth Amendment says as much.“I don’t know,” Mr. Trump said again. “It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials.” Left unmentioned was how anyone could be sure these people were undocumented immigrants, let alone criminals, without hearings.Mr. Trump responded “I don’t know” one more time and referred to his “brilliant lawyers” when Ms. Welker asked whether, as president, he needed to “uphold the Constitution of the United States.”The comments came amid the many legal challenges to the administration’s agenda, especially Mr. Trump’s aggressive deportation campaign, and as top administration officials have begun to question the president’s obligation to provide due process. Mr. Trump has attacked judges, called for their impeachment and ignored a Supreme Court ruling directing his administration to facilitate the return of a migrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly sent to a prison for terrorists in El Salvador.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

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Someone Should Tell Trump He’s About to Make the Trade Deficit Worse

      by

      There are many reasons President Trump should not be pushing Congress to pass huge tax cuts, but here’s one you may not have heard: Budget deficits and trade deficits are twins. When the former go up, so, generally, do the latter. So at the same moment Mr. Trump is upending the global economy in a feckless attempt to eliminate America’s trade deficit, he’s essentially pressuring Congress to increase it.Here’s how it happens. The United States buys a lot of goods from other countries, and we pay for the goods with dollars. But those dollars are no good abroad, so the countries we buy from invest them here. Some of the money goes, directly or indirectly, into businesses that are raising cash to build new data centers or expand natural gas facilities or construct new apartment complexes. Other dollars go into Treasury bonds or bills, which the federal government uses to fund our large budget deficit. (The same thing happens in reverse when other countries buy from the United States — but to a lesser degree, since our imports are larger than our exports.)If the budget deficit rises, American investors could theoretically cover the shortfall, but that would mean putting their money in Treasury securities rather than businesses and their capital needs. The other option is that foreign countries amass more dollars and plow them back into the U.S. economy. How would they get those additional dollars? From all the German cars and Chinese electronics and imported beer that Americans will buy with the money from their tax cuts.More generally, a larger budget deficit will require the government to borrow more money, which drives up interest rates. Higher interest rates mean a stronger dollar, which makes it more expensive for people in other countries to buy our products, cheaper for us to buy theirs, and thus the trade deficit widens.So cutting taxes, as Mr. Trump has told Congress to do, will drive up the budget deficit — and the trade deficit. All of this may seem counterintuitive, but it’s one of the few things that economists agree about.The budget deficit is already worryingly high and the tax cuts Mr. Trump is seeking would make it even larger. Last year the United States ran a $1.8 trillion budget deficit, or 6 percent of the gross domestic product — higher than at any other time except during World War II, the late-2000s financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic — despite strong economic growth and no unusual emergencies.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

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      For the U.S. and China, the Only Talking Is About Whether to Talk

      by

      The standoff over terms of negotiations, and whether they are happening, signals that a protracted economic fight lies ahead.As trade tensions flared between the world’s largest economies, communication between the United States and China has been so shaky that the two superpowers cannot even agree on whether they are talking at all.At a White House economic briefing this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent demurred multiple times when pressed about President Trump’s recent claim that President Xi Jinping of China had called him. Although top economic officials might usually be aware of such high-level talks, Mr. Bessent insisted that he was not logging the president’s calls.“I have a lot of jobs around the White House; running the switchboard isn’t one of them,” Mr. Bessent joked.But the apparent silence between the United States and China is a serious matter for the global economy.Markets are fixated on the mystery of whether back-channel discussions are taking place. Although the two countries have not severed all ties, it does seem that they have gone dark when it comes to conversations about tariffs.“China and the U.S. have not held consultations or negotiations on the issue of tariffs,” Guo Jiakun, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, said at a news conference last Friday. “The United States should not confuse the public.”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