US economy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 288 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Silicon Valley Bank said it was too small to need regulation. Now it’s ‘too big to fail’ | Rebecca Burns and Julia Rock

      by

      Silicon Valley Bank was supposedly the type of institution that would never need a government bailout – right until its backers spent three days on social media demanding one, and then promptly receiving it, after the bank’s spectacular collapse last week.Eight years ago, when the bank’s CEO, Greg Becker, personally pressed Congress to exempt SVB from post-2008 financial reform rules, he cited its “low risk profile” and role supporting “job-creating companies in the innovation economy”. Those companies include crypto outfits and venture capital firms typically opposed to the kind of government intervention they benefited from on Sunday, when regulators moved to guarantee SVB customers immediate access to their largely uninsured deposits.Fifteen years after the global financial crisis, the logic of “too big to fail” still prevails. The financial hardship of student debtors and underwater homeowners is a private problem – but losses sustained by titans of tech and finance are a matter of urgent public interest. Moral hazard for thee, but not for me.What’s more, SVB’s meteoric rise and fall serves as a reminder that many of the guardrails erected after the last crisis have since been dismantled – at the behest of banks like SVB, and with the help of lawmakers from both parties beholden to entrenched finance and tech lobbies.Before becoming the second-largest bank to fail in US history, SVB had transformed itself into a formidable influence machine – both in northern California, where it became the go-to lender for startups, and on Capitol Hill, where it spent close to a million dollars in a five-year period lobbying for the deregulatory policies that ultimately created the conditions for its downfall.“There are many ways to describe us,” SVB boasts on its website. “‘Bank’ is just one.”Indeed, SVB’s management appears to have neglected the basics of actual banking – the bank had no chief risk officer for most of last year, and failed to hedge its bets on interest rates, which ultimately played a key role in the bank’s downfall. In the meantime, the bank’s deposits ballooned from less than $50bn in 2019 to nearly $200bn in 2021.From the moment that Congress passed banking reforms through the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, SVB lobbied to defang the same rules that would probably have allowed regulators to spot trouble sooner. On many occasions, lawmakers and regulators from both parties bowed to the bank’s demands.One of SVB’s first targets was a key Dodd-Frank reform aimed at preventing federally insured banks from using deposits for risky investments. In 2012, SVB petitioned the Obama administration to exempt venture capital from the so-called Volcker Rule, which prevented banks from investing in or sponsoring private equity or hedge funds.​​“Venture investments are not the type of high-risk, ‘casino-like’ activities Congress designed the Volcker Rule to eliminate,” the bank argued to regulators. “Venture capital investments fund the high-growth startup companies that will drive innovation, create jobs, promote our economic growth, and help the United States compete in the global marketplace.”After the Obama administration finalized the Volcker Rule in 2014 without a venture capital carveout, SVB sought its own exemption that would allow it to maintain direct investments in venture capital funds, in addition to providing traditional banking services for roughly half of all venture-backed companies.One such firm was Ribbit Capital, a key investor in the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which lauded SVB’s tech-friendly ethos in a 2015 New York Times profile. “You can go to a big bank, but you have to teach them how you are doing your investment,” Ribbit’s founder told the Times. At SBV, “these guys breathe, eat and drink this Kool-Aid every day.”In the transition between the Obama and Trump administrations, SVB got what it wanted: a string of deregulation, based on the idea that the bank posed no threat to the financial system.In 2015, Becker, the CEO, submitted testimony to Congress arguing that SVB, “like our mid-size peers, does not present systemic risks” – and therefore should not be subject to the more stringent regulations, stress tests and capital requirements required at the time for banks with $50bn or more in assets.Two years later, SVB was one of just a handful of banks to receive a five-year exemption from the Volcker Rule, allowing it to maintain its investments in high-risk venture capital funds.The deregulatory drumbeat grew louder in Congress, and in 2018 lawmakers passed legislation increasing to $250bn the threshold at which banks receive enhanced supervision – again, based on the argument that smaller banks would never prove “too big to fail”.The Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, supported the deregulatory push. Under Powell, a former private equity executive, the Fed in 2019 implemented a so-called “tailoring rule”, further exempting mid-size banks from liquidity requirements and stress tests.Even then, the banks’ lobbying groups continued to push a blanket exemption to the Volcker Rule for venture capital funds, which Powell advocated for and banking regulators granted in 2020.Then, in 2021, SVB won the Federal Reserve’s signoff on its $900m acquisition of Boston Private Bank and Trust, on the grounds that the post-merger bank would not “pose significant risk to the financial system in the event of financial distress”.“SVB Group’s management has the experience and resources to ensure that the combined organization would operate in a safe and sound manner,” Federal Reserve officials wrote.Since the financial crisis, SVB has reported spending more than $2m on federal lobbying efforts, while the bank’s political action committee and executives have made nearly $650,000 in campaign contributions, the bulk to Democrats.Among the highlights of this influence campaign was a 2016 fundraiser for the Democratic senator Mark Warner of Virginia, hosted by Greg Becker in his Menlo Park home. A few months later, Warner and three other Democratic senators wrote to regulators arguing for weaker capital rules on regional banks.Warner went on to become one of 50 congressional Democrats who joined with Republicans to pass the 2018 Dodd-Frank rollback. When asked this week about his vote, Warner said: “I think it put in place an appropriate level of regulation on mid-sized banks … these mid-sized banks needed some regulatory relief.”In the wake of SVB’s collapse, Republicans have not renounced their votes for deregulation – nor have most of the Democrats who joined them, even as Biden is promising a crackdown.Warner took to ABC’s This Week on Sunday to defend his vote; Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Democrat from New Hampshire, told NBC on Tuesday that “all the regulation in the world isn’t going to fix bad management practices”. Senator Jon Tester, the Democrat from Montana and a co-sponsor of the 2018 deregulatory law, even held a fundraiser in Silicon Valley the day after the SVB bailout was announced.Unless they reverse course, the Silicon Valley Bank bailout could prove politically disastrous for Democrats, who just oversaw the rescue of coastal elites in a moment of ongoing economic pain for everyone else.The good news is that there are straightforward steps that Democrats can take to start fixing things.For example: Senator Elizabeth Warren’s legislation to repeal Trump-era financial deregulation.Democrats can also revisit the areas where Dodd-Frank fell short, including stronger minimum capital requirements, and consider longstanding proposals to disincentivize risky behavior by banks by reforming bankers’ pay. And they should demand that Powell recuse himself from the Federal Reserve investigation of recent bank failures and take a hard look at whether his disastrous record merits outright dismissal under the Federal Reserve Act, which allows the president to fire a central bank chair “for cause”.And yet even now – amid the wreckage of deregulation – these and other measures to better regulate the banks may still be nonstarters among both the Republicans and corporate Democrats who voted for the regulatory rollbacks and have so far shown little sign of repentance.The words of the Illinois Democratic senator Dick Durbin still ring true, 14 years after the financial crisis.“The banks – hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created – are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill,” he said back in 2009. “And they frankly own the place.”If that remains true today, the possibility of change looks grim.
      Rebecca Burns and Julia Rock are reporters for the Lever, an independent investigative news outlet, where a version of this article also appeared More

    • 175 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US banking system 'remains sound' despite bank collapses, says treasury secretary Yellen – video

      by

      Janet Yellen, the Treasury secretary, informed Congress that the recent collapses of two US banks, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, does not reflect on the overall strength of the US banking system. Yellen told Congress the US banking system ‘remains sound,’ claiming that the government’s swift response to the failures helped to restore public confidence in the banking system. ‘I can reassure the members of the committee that our banking system remains sound, and that Americans can feel confident that their deposits will be there when they need them,’ she said More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      US banking system 'remains sound' despite bank collapses, says Janet Yellen – video

      by

      Janet Yellen, the US treasury secretary, told Congress that the recent collapses of two US banks, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, does not reflect on the overall strength of the US banking system. She told Congress the US banking system ‘remains sound’, claiming that the government’s swift response to the failures helped to restore public confidence in the banking system. ‘I can reassure the members of the committee that our banking system remains sound, and that Americans can feel confident that their deposits will be there when they need them,’ she said More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden stresses taxpayer funds won’t be used in Silicon Valley Bank collapse – as it happened

      by

      Speaking at the White House, Joe Biden is attempting to reassure Americans that the banking system will hold up.“Thanks to the quick action in my administration over the past few days, Americans can have confidence that the banking system is safe,” the president said.“Your deposits will be there when you need them. Small businesses across the country that deposit accounts at these banks can breathe easier knowing they’ll be able to pay their workers and pay their bills. And their hardworking employees can breathe easier as well.”Washington is on tenterhooks, waiting to see if the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, and the government’s efforts to ensure its depositors can get their money, cause wider chaos in the economy. Democratic senator and Wall Street foe Elizabeth Warren said the California-based institution’s debacle is a sign that rolling back financial regulations in 2018 was not a good idea, while Republicans are blaming everything from Twitter to the woke mob. And on the 2024 campaign trail, Nikki Haley described the government’s intervention with the most infamous b-word: bailout.Here’s what else happened today:
      Joe Biden approved a major oil and gas drilling project in Alaska while protecting the Arctic ocean and millions of acres elsewhere in the state from petroleum exploration. Environmental groups are furious.
      Social security is like Silicon Valley Bank: so says Republican senator Bill Cassidy.
      Barney Frank was a champion of financial regulation during his time in Congress, but then sat on the board of a now-closed bank and said he doesn’t think tighter rules would have stopped the recent insolvencies.
      Rupert Murdoch has not watched Succession, it turns out.
      Have you been affected by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank? Tell us.
      The New York Times reports that after the GOP took control of the House, its oversight committee dropped an inquiry into whether Donald Trump profited improperly from his time as president.The investigation had ensnared Mazars USA, an accounting firm used by the former president until they cut ties with him a year ago, and the oversight committee’s top Democrat has alleged that its Republican leader colluded with Trump in ending it.“It has come to my attention that you may have acted in league with attorneys for former President Donald Trump to block the committee from receiving documents subpoenaed in its investigation of unauthorized, unreported and unlawful payments by foreign governments and others to then-President Trump,” Democratic lawmaker Jamie Raskin wrote to James Comer, the committee chair.In an interview with the Times, Comer confirmed that the committee had dropped the inquiry, essentially saying they were now focused on scrutinizing current White House occupant Joe Biden.“I honestly didn’t even know who or what Mazars was,” Comer said.“They’ve been ‘investigating’ Trump for six years. I know exactly what I’m investigating: money the Bidens received from China.”The consequences of the January 6 insurrection continue to reverberate across Washington, including among Republicans. Here’s The Guardian’s Sam Levine on the growing divide within the GOP over the attack:Some Republicans have rebuked efforts by Donald Trump and Fox News host Tucker Carlson to whitewash the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, underscoring a significant split in the party over attempts to downplay the events of the day.Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House, turned over more than 40,000 hours of security footage from the Capitol to Carlson earlier this year. This week, Carlson aired selectively edited portions of that footage, falsely claiming the rioters were “sightseers” and “not insurrectionists”. At least 1,000 people have been arrested for their role in the January 6 attack. Five people died as a result of it.More than 999 people have been arrested so far, according to the justice department. Around 518 people have pleaded guilty to federal crimes to date and 53 have been found guilty at trial.Republican response to the January 6 Capitol attack divides partyRead moreFor more on how Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors will be made whole, and whether or not what the government is doing constitutes a bailout, here’s the Guardian Edward Helmore:When is a bailout not a bailout? It’s a question many people are asking after the dramatic collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and the US’s decision to rescue depositors on Sunday.Joe Biden, elected and appointed officials all insist the emergency interventions to protect deposits in Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, a second bank that failed on the weekend, or, indeed, any further bank failures, won’t come at taxpayers’ expense.On Monday, Biden was at pains to say that “no losses” would be borne by taxpayers, and the money would come from the fees that banks pay into the Deposit Insurance Fund.Avoiding the ‘B-word’: is the US response to SVB’s collapse a bailout?Read moreRepublican senator Josh Hawley has spent the day accusing Silicon Valley Bank of promoting “woke” ideology, and now he wants to undermine the Biden administration’s efforts to make its depositors whole.Based in Santa Clara, California, Silicon Valley Bank did a lot of business with the venture capital community, including startups focused on fighting climate change, according to the New York Times. To Hawley, that’s enough to earn it the amorphous “woke” moniker:So these SVB guys spend all their time funding woke garbage (“climate change solutions”) rather than actual banking and now want a handout from taxpayers to save them— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) March 13, 2023
      Now Hawley, who is perhaps best known outside his home state of Missouri for promoting Donald Trump’s baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and later running from the mob that attacked the Capitol, says he will stop the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from making a special assessment on American banks so that Silicon Valley Bank depositors don’t lose money:Now we learn the Biden Admin will impose “special assessments” (= fees) on banks across the country to pay for the SVB bailout. No way MO customers are paying for a woke bailout. I will introduce legislation preventing any bank from passing these fees on to customers -— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) March 13, 2023
      And my legislation will exempt responsible community banks from the “special fees” to bail out the California billionaires— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) March 13, 2023
      The Guardian’s Edward Helmore reports on the changing fortunes of Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, who is at the center of an increasingly intense controversy over his peddling of 2020 election conspiracy theories:Tucker Carlson was once seen as untouchable. Now the most popular TV host on American cable news is at the center of a firestorm threatening to engulf Fox News and also anger Donald Trump, whose conspiracy theory-laden political cause he has long championed and who his audience loves.Court filings attached to the $1.6bn Dominion Voting Systems defamation suit accuse Fox News of allowing its stars to broadcast false accusations about rigged voting machines in the 2020 presidential election.The documents contained numerous emails detailing the private views and concerns of senior Fox management and its stars, which often seemed at odds with what they were publicly broadcasting to their audience.Tucker Carlson firestorm over Trump texts threatens to engulf Fox News Read moreThe hit HBO show Succession is loosely based on his life as the patriarch of an unruly billionaire family, but that doesn’t mean Rupert Murdoch watches it.Though the head of the rightwing media empire is under growing pressure amid a $1.6bn defamation lawsuit against his Fox News network, Murdoch recently took time to reveal that he has never watched the comedy-drama series that is set to launch its fourth season on 24 March, the Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports.A reporter for the media outlet Semafor got the scoop having contacted Murdoch after his email address was revealed in court filings pertaining to the lawsuit. Murdoch’s reply to the reporter’s email asking if he followed Succession reportedly was: “Never watched it.”‘Never watched it’: Rupert Murdoch answers cold email about SuccessionRead moreAn unlikely figure has found himself drawn into the recent wave of bank collapses: Barney Frank.The former House Democratic lawmaker’s name graces the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which tightened banking regulations following the global financial crisis. It turns out, he was serving on the board of Signature Bank, which regulators on Sunday closed, making it the third American bank to fail in five days.In an interview with Bloomberg News, he said he disagreed with the decision to shut down the New York-based institution. “I think that if we’d been allowed to open tomorrow, that we could’ve continued – we have a solid loan book, we’re the biggest lender in New York City under the low-income housing tax credit.”More interestingly, he disputed that the 2018 rollback of parts of the Dodd-Frank Act played any role in the failures of Signature and other similar sized institutions – like Silicon Valley Bank. That legislation, signed by Donald Trump, raised to $250bn the level at which banks are subjected to the most strict oversight. Both Signature and Silicon Valley were below that amount.“I don’t think there was any laxity on the part of regulators in regulating the banks in that category, from $50 billion to $250 billion,” Frank said in the interview.Washington is on tenterhooks, waiting to see if the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, and the government’s efforts to ensure its depositors can get their money, cause wider chaos in the economy. Democratic senator and Wall Street foe Elizabeth Warren said the California-based bank’s debacle is a sign that rolling back financial regulation in 2018 was not a good idea, while Republicans are blaming everything from Twitter to the woke mob. And on the 2024 campaign trail, Nikki Haley described the government’s intervention with the most infamous b-word: bailout.Here’s what else has happened today:
      Joe Biden approved a major oil and gas drilling project in Alaska while protecting the Arctic ocean and millions of acres elsewhere in the state from petroleum exploration. Environmental groups are furious.
      Social security is like Silicon Valley Bank: so says Republican senator Bill Cassidy.
      Have you been affected by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank? Tell us.
      Louisiana’s two Republicans senators have been getting a lot of air time on Fox News lately, with John Kennedy appearing yesterday to complain about how Joe Biden recently put the GOP on the spot over social security. Here’s Maya Yang’s story:The Republican senator John Kennedy accused Joe Biden of “demagoguing” the issue of how to fund social security and Medicare and protecting the two programs from Republican proposals to cut them, calling it a “very immature thing to do”.Speaking to Fox News Sunday, Kennedy took aim at Biden for mentioning in his State of the Union address last month that some Republicans have proposed to “sunset” social security and Medicare as part of attempts to balance the federal budget.“The problem is that President Biden in his State of the Union Address decided to demagogue the issue,” the Louisiana senator said. “We all saw it.“He basically said, ‘If you talk about social security or Medicare, I’m going to call you a mean, bad person.’ And that just took the issue off the table when the president decided to demagogue it … You can only be young once, but you can always be immature, and I thought it was a very immature thing to do.”Republican John Kennedy takes aim at Biden over social security fundingRead moreRepublican presidential contender Nikki Haley is describing the US government’s efforts to stop Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors from losing their money as a “bailout”.It’s a politically loaded word, considering how deeply controversial Washington’s 2008 decision to help large banks during the global financial crisis remain.Here’s her statement, on Twitter:Joe Biden is pretending this isn’t a bailout. It is.Now depositors at healthy banks are forced to subsidize Silicon Valley Bank’s mismanagement. When the Deposit Insurance Fund runs dry, all bank customers are on the hook. That’s a public bailout.Depositors should be paid by… https://t.co/LDmCR9NOCd— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) March 13, 2023
      Meanwhile, Republican senator Bill Cassidy has compared social security – the government program credited with keeping many elderly Americans out of poverty – to Silicon Valley Bank.He made the comment in an interview with Fox News as he discussed social security’s very real problem of long-term funding:Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA): “Social Security is the Silicon Valley Bank of retirement systems.” pic.twitter.com/J5N8nhnXko— The Recount (@therecount) March 13, 2023
      Joe Biden today authorized a major oil drilling project in Alaska that has angered environmental groups, who see it as a setback in Washington’s fight against climate change. In an effort to temper those criticisms, the president also banned drilling in the Arctic ocean, and protected millions of acres of land in Alaska. Here’s the Guardian’s coverage of one of the Biden administration’s most significant environmental decisions, from Oliver Milman, Nina Lakhani and Maanvi Singh:The Biden administration has approved a controversial $8bn (£6bn) drilling project on Alaska’s north slope, which has drawn fierce opposition from environmentalists and some Alaska Native communities, who say it will speed up the climate breakdown and undermine food security.The ConocoPhillips Willow project will be on of the largest of its kind on US soil, involving drilling for oil and gas at three sites for multiple decades on the 23m-acre National Petroleum Reserve which is owned by the federal government and is the largest tract of undisturbed public land in the US.It will produce an estimated 576m barrels of oil over 30 years, with a peak of 180,000 barrels of crude a day. This extraction, which ConocoPhillips has said may, ironically, involve refreezing the rapidly thawing Arctic permafrost to stabilize drilling equipment, would create one of the largest “carbon bombs” on US soil, potentially producing more than twice as many emissions than all renewable energy projects on public lands by 2030 would cut combined.Biden approves controversial Willow oil drilling project in AlaskaRead moreFlorida governor Ron DeSantis is among the Republicans expected to soon jump into the 2024 presidential race, and in a Fox News interview yesterday, he blamed Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse on the liberal policies he’s built a reputation for railing against:DEI stands for “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, the sorts of initiatives DeSantis’s administration in Florida has made a point of targeting. He also blames the “massive federal bureaucracy” for letting the collapse happen – which is interesting, because during his time as a House lawmaker in 2018, he voted for the legislation that rolled back some of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulations, which is now being blamed for Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      It’s OK to be Angry about Capitalism review: Bernie Sanders, by the book

      by

      ReviewIt’s OK to be Angry about Capitalism review: Bernie Sanders, by the bookThe Vermont senator and former presidential candidate offers a clarion call against the American oligarchsThe Vermont senator Bernie Sanders has a predictably unsparing view of the effects of “unfettered capitalism”: it “destroys anything that gets in its way in the pursuit of profits. It destroys the environment. It destroys our democracy. It discards human beings without a second thought. It will never provide workers with the fulfillment that Americans have a right to expect from their careers. [And it is] propelled by uncontrollable greed and contempt for human decency.”Has Bernie Sanders really helped Joe Biden move further left?Read moreThe two-time presidential candidate makes his case with the usual horrifying numbers about the acceleration of inequality in America: 90% of our wealth is owned by one-tenth of 1% of the population; the wealth of 725 US billionaires increased 70% during the pandemic to more than $5tn; BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street now control assets of $20tn and are major shareholders in 96% of S&P 500 companies.Sanders recites these statistics with religious fervor, and poses fundamental questions for our time: “Do we believe in the Golden Rule? [or] do we accept … that gold rules – and that lying, cheating, and stealing are OK if you’re powerful enough to get away with it?”Bernie believes (and I strongly agree) that it’s long past the time when we should be paying at least as much attention to American oligarchs as we do to those surrounding Vladimir Putin. Our homegrown plutocrats “own” our democracy.“They spend tens of billions … on campaign contributions … to buy politicians who will do their bidding. They spend billions more on lobbying firms to influence governmental decisions” at every level. And “to a significant degree”, the oligarchs “own” the media. That is why our prominent pundits “rarely raise issues that will undermine the privileged positions of their employers” and “there is little public discussion about the power of corporate America and how oligarchs wield that power to benefit their interests at the expense of working families”.We were reminded this week of how this system works. Joe Biden released a budget with perfectly modest proposals for tax increases, like a 25% minimum tax on the wealthiest Americans and a seven-percentage-point raise in the corporate tax rate to 28%, which would still leave it seven points lower than it was before Donald Trump gutted it with his gigantic tax giveaways.Instantly, experts owned and operated by the billionaires started spewing their familiar bilge, like these moving words from the Cato Institute: “Higher tax rates on the wages of a narrow segment of the United States’ most productive executives and business leaders will have strong disincentives against their continued work and other negative behavioral effects that translate into a less dynamic, slower growing economy.“Higher taxes on investment income target the financial rewards to successful entrepreneurs who undertake risks and persevere through failure to build high return businesses that provide welfare enhancing goods and services to people around the world.”Sanders quotes one of the most prescient Americans of the mid-20th century, from 1944: “As our industrial economy expanded [our] political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”The name of that dangerous revolutionary: Franklin Delano Roosevelt.Several decades before that, Theodore Roosevelt similarly bemoaned the “absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting” which “has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power”.There is something extremely refreshing about an author who assumes it should be obvious that billionaires should not be allowed to exist – and has perfectly reasonable proposals about how they should be eliminated. At the height of the pandemic, Sanders proposed the Make Billionaires Pay Act, which would have imposed a 60% tax on all the wealth gained by 467 billionaires between 18 March 2020 and January 2021.“But why stop at one year?” he now asks. After all, the 1950s were economic boom times in America – and under a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, “the top tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was around 92%. America thrived. Unions were strong. Working-class Americans could afford to support themselves and buy homes on a single income.” And the richest 20% controlled a measly (by current standards) 42.8% of the wealth.Bernie Sanders: ‘Oligarchs run Russia. But guess what? They run the US as well’Read moreSanders’ 99.5 Percent Act would only touch the top 0.5% of Americans. “But the families of billionaires in America, who have a combined net worth of over $5tn, would owe up to $3tn in estate taxes.” He would accomplish this with a 45% tax rate on estates worth $3.5m and a 65% rate on those worth more than $1bn.There is much more here, including a convincing case for Medicare for All and an excoriation of a for-profit healthcare system which spends twice as much per citizen as France or Germany and still manages to leaves tens of millions of Americans un- or underinsured, all while nourishing an obscene pharmaceuticals business in which profits jumped by 90% in 2021.I first toured the castles of the Loire Valley as a teenager in the company of the family of my uncle, Jerry Kaiser, a 60s radical and a very early opponent of the war in Vietnam. As we absorbed the opulence of one chateau after another, Jerry had only one question: “What took them so long to have a revolution?”The noble purpose of Bernie Sander’s powerful new book is to get millions of Americans to ask that question of themselves – right now.
      It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism is published in the US by Crown
      TopicsBooksBernie SandersUS politicsDemocratsUS SenateUS CongressUS economyreviewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US could face default as soon as June if debt ceiling isn’t lifted, says thinktank

      by

      US could face default as soon as June if debt ceiling isn’t lifted, says thinktankExpectations are low for quick progress as Republican lawmakers push for steep spending cuts in exchange for a dealThe US could face an unprecedented default on its obligations as soon as early June if Congress does not act to lift the debt limit, a Washington thinktank said on Wednesday.The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), which forecasts the approximate “X-date” when the government will no longer be able to meet its financial obligations on time, said the US will reach its statutory debt limit as soon as the summer or early fall of 2023.Can a trillion-dollar coin end the US debt-ceiling standoff?Read moreThat inches up from the center’s previous prediction, in June 2022, that the “extraordinary measures” the US Treasury uses to pay the government’s bills would not be exhausted before the third quarter of 2023.Previewing the data for reporters, Shai Akabas, BPC director of economic policy, said the new projections reflect “considerable uncertainty in our nation’s current economic outlook”.“Policymakers have an opportunity now to inject certainty into the US and global economy by beginning, in earnest, bipartisan negotiations around our nation’s fiscal health and taking action to uphold the full faith and credit of the United States well before the X-date,” he said.Akabas said the December 2022 big spending bill, an extended pause on student loan repayments and high interest rates resulting in higher costs to service US debt have contributed to moving up the X-date.The treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, notified Congress in January that her agency was resorting to “extraordinary measures” to avoid default, and that “it is unlikely that cash and extraordinary measures will be exhausted before early June”.Yellen said her actions would buy time until Congress can pass legislation that will either raise the $31.4tn borrowing authority or suspend the limit for a period of time. But she said it’s “critical that Congress act in a timely manner”.Joe Biden and the new Republican House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, met earlier this month to talk about the debt limit. But expectations are low for quick progress as GOP lawmakers push for steep spending cuts in exchange for a deal.Biden has accused Republicans of plans to cut Medicare and social security. McCarthy has said those cuts are not in the picture, as has the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.The US treasury first used extraordinary measures in 1985 and has used them at least 16 times since, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal watchdog.Some economists have said the treasury could prioritize certain payments to bondholders in order to buy time for policymakers to resolve the issue.White House officials have said they will not prioritize payments to bondholders if the country passes the “X-date” without an agreement. Yellen has said debt payment prioritization is default by another name.“Failure on the part of the United States to meet any obligation, whether its debt holders, to members of our military or to social security recipients, is effectively a default,” she told reporters in January.TopicsUS economyUS politicsUS CongressRepublicansDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US could default this summer unless $31.4tn debt ceiling is raised, CBO warns

      by

      US could default this summer unless $31.4tn debt ceiling is raised, CBO warnsHistoric federal debt default could occur before July, cautions non-partisan agency The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Wednesday said the US treasury department will exhaust its ability to pay all its bills sometime between July and September, unless the current $31.4tn cap on borrowing is raised or suspended.In a report issued alongside its annual budget outlook, the non-partisan CBO cautioned that a historic federal debt default could occur before July if revenue flowing into the treasury in April – when most Americans typically submit annual income tax filings – lags expectations.US inflation eases again for seventh consecutive monthRead moreThe pace of incoming revenue, coupled with the performance of the US economy in the coming months, makes it difficult for government officials to predict the exact “X-date”, when the treasury could begin to default on many debt payments without action by Congress.“If the debt limit is not raised or suspended before the extraordinary measures are exhausted, the government would be unable to pay its obligations fully,” the CBO report said. “As a result, the government would have to delay making payments for some activities, default on its debt obligations, or both.”Separately, the CBO said annual US budget deficits will average $2tn between 2024 and 2033, approaching pandemic-era records by the end of the decade – a forecast likely to stoke Republican demands for spending cuts.Meanwhile, the CBO estimated an unemployment rate of 4.7% this year, far above the current 3.4%.CBO director Phillip Swagel attributed the rise to higher interest rates that particularly are hitting the housing industry, coupled with slowing business investment.The sobering analysis reflects the full impact of recent spending legislation, including investments in clean energy and semiconductors and higher military spending, along with higher healthcare, pension and interest costs. It assumes no change in tax and spending laws over the next decade.“Over the long term, our projections suggest that changes in fiscal policy must be made to address the rising costs of interest and mitigate other adverse consequences of high and rising debt,” Swagel said in a statement.The need to raise the debt ceiling is driven by past spending laws and tax cuts, some enacted under Joe Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump.Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, want to withhold a debt limit increase until Democrats agree to deep spending cuts. Democrats in turn say the debt limit should not be “held hostage” to Republican tactics over federal spending.After hitting the $31.4tn borrowing cap on 19 January, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the treasury can keep up payments on debt and federal benefits and make other outlays at least through 5 June using cash receipts and extraordinary cash management measures.Year of the debt limitSo far in 2023, not a day has gone by on Capitol Hill without lawmakers jousting over the debt limit, as Democrats press for a quick, clean increase in treasury borrowing authority and Republicans insist on first nailing down significant reductions in future government spending.Social security and Medicare, the government’s popular pension plan and its healthcare program for Americans ages 65 and older, are at the center of the debt limit and government funding debate, as both parties also jockey to define the contours of the 2024 presidential and congressional election campaigns.“There has been a Republican drumbeat to cut social security and Medicare,” Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, told reporters on Tuesday.Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has labored, without much success so far, to smother such talk.“Let me say one more time. There is no agenda on the part of Senate Republicans to revisit Medicare or social security. Period,” he said at a news conference.Most Americans do not closely follow Washington’s debt-ceiling saga, but they still worry it could hurt their finances, according to a Reuters/Ipsos public opinion poll conducted between 6-13 February.In that poll, 55% of US adults said they have heard little or nothing about the debate, but three-quarters of respondents said Congress must reach a deal because defaulting would add to their families’ financial stress, largely through potentially higher borrowing costs.TopicsUS economyBiden administrationJoe BidenUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 238 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden’s State of the Union speech was in stark contrast to Britain’s dearth of economic ideas | Martin Kettle

      by

      Biden’s State of the Union speech was in stark contrast to Britain’s dearth of economic ideasMartin KettleThe US president’s strategy is a world away from anything the Tories have to offer. Labour needs to learn from it01:19:16Like every State of the Union address by every US president before him, Joe Biden’s speech to Congress on Tuesday was aimed squarely at the domestic audience. The United States may be a global superpower, but the rest of the world counts for little when the president makes his annual winter journey up to Capitol Hill. The Beltway rituals of the evening – the obligatory hallowed phrases, the namechecks of the guests in the gallery, the breaks for standing ovations (and this week some heckling) – all combine to label this as a 100% American occasion.Watching from across the ocean, the temptation may be to discuss a State of the Union as if we are Americans, too. Some in the British political class slip readily into the garb of voyeur participants, weighing how the Democratic president’s agenda will play in the Republican-controlled Congress, talking about Donald Trump and culture wars, speculating on the next election, and offering views on whether the 80-year-old Biden ought to run again.These are all real questions for Americans. Yet for this country they are, at best, vicarious issues. Nevertheless, for once, Biden’s message did not stop at the Atlantic’s edge. This time it vaulted across the ocean. It is hard to recall any State of the Union address this century – even in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks – in which the resonances for Britain were louder.Biden’s speech centred on a profound issue that also faces Britain. It was built around the absolutely fundamental question that confronts all modern political economies today. How, in the wake of Covid and at a time of European war, can a government in an advanced capitalist society make the economy generate growth, greater security, greater fairness and environmental sustainability?Biden’s answers were a world away from the ones that are currently aired in British politics and media. In part, that’s simply because the US and Britain are different countries. The issues look different in the UK, with an economy on the edge of recession, suffering high inflation and rising interest rates, to the way they look in the US, where inflation is falling, employment expanding and in which consumer confidence is improving.In some fundamentals, however, the two have started from the same places. Both have faced the economic shocks of Covid and high energy prices. Before the pandemic and the Ukraine war, both also faced a post-industrial working-class electorate that felt abandoned by government and the financier class, and voted for Brexit and Trump.Under Biden, however, a real difference has emerged. Although both the US and the UK responded to Covid and the energy price spike with measures to protect families, only Biden has tried to bring the full power of government to bear on the wider economic decline and to reverse it with a strategy of investment-led growth.It is not a story of unblemished success, and there have been political battles along the way, including with his fellow Democrats, but on Tuesday Biden was able to celebrate the impact of measures such as his Infrastructure Act, with its 20,000 job-creating projects in transport, utilities and cabling, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which bears down on health and energy costs and marks a major strategic response to the climate crisis.Here’s what Biden said in Tuesday’s speech about that. “I ran for president to fundamentally change things, to make sure the economy works for everyone so we can all feel pride in what we do. To build an economy from the bottom up and the middle out, not from the top down. Because when the middle class does well, the poor have a ladder up and the wealthy still do very well. We all do well.”And here’s what Biden said about raising taxes to pay for these programmes. No one earning less than $400,000 a year should pay more. But no billionaire should pay a lower tax rate than a school teacher or a firefighter. Oil companies should not be able to make billions of dollars out of an energy crisis. “We pay for these investments in our future by finally making the wealthiest and the biggest corporations begin to pay their fair share. I’m a capitalist. But just pay your fair share.”These are words in a speech, not yet nailed-down achievements in the life of the nation. The Republicans will use Congress to stop much of it in its tracks. As words, as a strategy and as a story so far, however, Biden’s message is a world away from anything that Britain’s leaders have attempted or embraced.Liz Truss, of course, would oppose everything that Biden stands for. She stands for a top-down not a bottom-up or middle-out economic approach, and for tax cuts for the wealthiest people and the richest corporations. The contrast helps explain why Britain is still in economic distress and the US is starting to recover. But it isn’t just Truss. No British Conservative leader of the past decade and a half would have said the things Biden said this week.More importantly, perhaps, would any Labour leader now say them either? Keir Starmer has hinted, in his energy policy commitments, that he is open to responding big in the Biden manner. Like Biden, he is a consensus-builder by nature. But Starmer is at a different place in the political cycle, operates in a very different political and economic environment, and most of his strategic thinking has not been revealed or tested.The Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne suggested this week that Joe Biden is a quiet revolutionary, slowly turning the US away from the neoliberal economic assumptions that took hold in the 1980s. Biden’s State of the Union speech, with its commitment to growing the economy for everyone, seems to bear that out. It is not guaranteed to succeed. But it is hugely in the Labour party’s interests that it should, and that Labour is able to learn from it.
      Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsState of the Union addressOpinionJoe BidenUS economyUS politicscommentReuse this content More