“At its heart, industrial policy strives to solve a “classic Keynesian political problem,” says economic historian Yakov Feygin, director of the Berggruen Institute’s Future of Capitalism program: The only way to grow the economy is ultimately through productivity-enhancing investment — but there are enormous upfront costs to building new plants or buying new equipment, especially at the technological bleeding edge, while returns are years in the future if they ever come at all.
If only capitalists get to decide when to invest, they may — rightfully — decide that the unpredictability of future demand and credit conditions make it difficult to justify expanding capacity in crucial sectors even in the face of soaring prices. They fear the “bullwhip effect,” where investors may put up cash for new plants or equipment to respond to higher prices, only for those prices to fall before new production can actually come online.”
…
“The government, for better or worse, has the unique ability to stabilize the investment cycle and goad risk-averse private capital into making desperately needed, but enormously costly, long-term investments.”
…
“Biden’s economic team is betting on something Hamilton knew: Long-term investment in the real economy is essential, but private investors might not provide it. That’s where government can — and should — step in.”
“The Biden administration is expanding health coverage under Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), delivering a long-sought victory for immigrant advocates.
The new rule means the 600,000 immigrants with active DACA status will be able to apply for coverage through their state Medicaid agencies and through the federal health insurance marketplace, where they may qualify for financial assistance based on income. But that victory might be short-lived if the DACA program itself is overturned in court, where it is currently under threat. If DACA is overturned, that could leave hundreds of thousands of DACA beneficiaries, or so-called “DREAMers,” at sudden risk of deportation.”
“President Joe Biden and his staff have said repeatedly he is willing to sit down with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to negotiate a compromise on government taxes and spending.
Biden has also said, repeatedly, that he is unwilling to negotiate over raising the debt ceiling.
These things may seem contradictory. They are not, and the somewhat subtle distinction between the two is important for understanding what is happening in Washington, DC, this summer.
Congress has two important deadlines coming up.
One is the day that the US officially hits the debt ceiling, and cannot borrow more money from bond markets without further congressional authorization.
We don’t know when that day will be, exactly — but we have a guess. In a Monday letter to McCarthy and other lawmakers, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that “our best estimate is that we will be unable to continue to satisfy all of the government’s obligations by early June, and potentially as early as June 1” without a debt ceiling increase.
Once we reach that date, the federal government will not be able to pay its bills, or for things like Social Security checks, payroll for service members and other federal employees, and Medicare reimbursements. Interest payments on past debt could go unpaid, which would mean the US government would default on its debts.
The US would almost certainly enter a recession, probably a quite severe one, and the whole world could face a massive financial crisis. Beth Ann Bovino, chief US economist at Standard and Poor’s, was hardly alone in 2017 when she predicted that “the impact of a default by the U.S. government on its debts would be worse than the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.”
The second deadline is September 30, 2023, the date that funding for the federal government runs out. If Congress does not pass funding bills lasting beyond that date, then on October 1, the federal government will “shut down” as it has done many times before, with many federal employees going without pay and “non-essential” services shutting down, but ordinary operations like Social Security, Medicare, and the military continuing.
Biden is willing to negotiate over the latter. He is not willing to negotiate over the former, as he reminded everyone anew in his invitation to congressional leaders for a May 9 debt ceiling discussion at the White House.
Whether he and McCarthy can navigate those distinctions and negotiate in good faith will likely determine whether the US tips into crisis in the next few months.”
…
“Biden’s principled case against bargaining over the debt ceiling is that doing so is effectively bargaining over policies Congress has already passed.
When Congress passed an omnibus spending bill in December 2022, it authorized specific amounts of funding for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends on September 30.
Congress has also, through literally hundreds of bills over the years, dictated the levels of tax on personal income, corporations, payroll, tobacco, etc. The revenue from these taxes do not come close to paying for the spending Congress has also authorized — meaning it has to borrow to pay for its obligations.
So the White House sees a debt ceiling bill as simply Congress agreeing to pay for spending it’s already approved, and obeying the 14th Amendment’s dictate that the federal government must always pay its debts.
“Like the President has said many times, raising the debt ceiling is not a negotiation; it is an obligation of this country and its leaders to avoid economic chaos,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre explained in January. “Congress has always done it, and the President expects them to do their duty once again. That is not negotiable.”
By contrast, arguing over the budget is arguing over future spending, which is a proper thing for the White House and Congress to debate with each other.”
“In anticipation of a surge of migrants, President Joe Biden is temporarily deploying another 1,500 active-duty troops to the US-Mexico border days before ending a controversial Trump-era border policy that has allowed his administration to rapidly expel migrants en masse.
Set to expire May 11, the so-called Title 42 policy was first implemented by former President Donald Trump on dubious grounds that migrants could be turned away to help prevent the spread of Covid-19. But the policy has continued for more than two years under Biden, has led to lawsuits and the resignation of a senior administration official, and has become a political flashpoint on the left.
Now, as Title 42 ends, the new troops will be stationed for 90 days alongside the 2,500 military personnel already at the border. Some Democrats have condemned Biden’s decision to maintain the policy for so long and to further militarize the border. But others — particularly those in purple states who could face tough reelection fights — have backed the president’s strategy, which is designed to protect him from right-wing attacks as he runs for reelection.”
…
“The administration has outlined a plan that involves opening new processing centers in Central and South America where migrants can apply to come to the US, Spain, or Canada legally, which is aimed at reducing pressure on the southern border. It will also accept 100,000 people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras under a family reunification program.
The administration is also planning to speed up processing on the border, quickly identifying individuals who have valid asylum claims and turning away those who don’t. Those who cross the border without authorization will be barred from legally reentering the US for five years. And a new rule will also restrict access to asylum in the US for individuals who cross through another country without first applying for protections there.”
“The Biden administration has framed its new, tighter “Buy American” regulations as a way to bolster domestic manufacturing and benefit parts of the country that have been left behind by technological innovation.
To many of those same communities, the White House has promised better connectivity and higher internet speeds. The bipartisan infrastructure plan signed by President Joe Biden in 2021 dedicated $42 billion to expanding broadband access, with much of the funding aimed at laying fiber optic lines in parts of the country where they don’t exist.
There’s one small problem with all this: Finding enough fiber optic cables that comply with the Buy American rules.”
…
“Under Biden’s Buy American rules, 55 percent of the component parts of any product used in a federal construction project must be sourced in the United States. That disqualifies any imports of finished cable, but it also wipes out most of the available American-made supply since many of the component parts are sourced overseas.”
…
“Another problem, according to a Bloomberg report earlier this week, is that building a fiber optic network requires more than just fiber optic cable. You also need switches, terminals, routers, and other pieces of tech that are mostly imported or manufactured with imported components. In both cases, the Buy American requirements mean broadband companies can’t use those parts for projects funded with federal funding from the infrastructure bill.
That means less infrastructure gets built, and lots of perfectly good American-made fiber optic cable doesn’t get purchased, simply because less than 55 percent of its components happened to come from somewhere else.”
“Nathaniel Rakich: Joe Biden is racing toward the political center. First, reports surfaced that his administration may resume detaining immigrant families who cross the border illegally. Then he came out in favor of blocking a Washington, D.C., law that would have reduced the penalties for certain crimes. Finally, he approved a massive new oil drilling project in Alaska that’s ardently opposed by environmentalists. So today we’re asking the question that a lot of progressive Democrats are asking themselves too: What’s the deal with Biden’s move to the center?
I can’t read Biden’s mind, but I suspect he’s doing this to improve his chances in the 2024 election. Biden hasn’t yet officially announced his reelection campaign, but moves like this leave little doubt that he’s running again. His approval rating is around 44 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s average. So he’s got to put in the reps to pump those numbers up.”
“Biden’s industrial policy is, not surprisingly, far more expansive than Trump’s. And unlike the Foxconn facility, which was subsidized by the state of Wisconsin, it has been bolstered by major legislation from Congress. Biden’s industrial policy rests primarily on three pieces of legislation: the bipartisan infrastructure law signed in 2021, and the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act signed last year. Together, this trio of bills provided hundreds of billions in subsidies, tax breaks, and inducements for domestic manufacturing, with a particular emphasis on semiconductor production and clean energy and transportation.
But these subsidies are already being used as vehicles to pursue unrelated goals: The Commerce Department, for example, recently announced that companies receiving subsidies from the CHIPS Act would have to provide child care for their workers.
In addition, the rules say beneficiaries should try to use union labor and pay union wages to construction workers. Biden, of course, is a self-described “union man,” but these provisions will inevitably drive up costs and make it more difficult to find suitable workers, since, as Cato Institute scholar Scott Lincicome has noted, only about 12 percent of U.S. construction workers are unionized.
Similarly, Biden’s infrastructure plans have been stymied by a requirement to “buy American,” since many of the products needed to build domestic infrastructure are no longer made in the United States.
Domestic production requirements have proven more than a headache for builders. When a Michigan baby formula plant stopped production last year following a bacterial infection, Americans struggled to find a replacement because federal rules make it nearly impossible to import baby formula from Europe. At best, “buy American” requirements raise costs. At worst, they put American lives at risk by making vital goods more difficult to procure in emergencies.”
…
“As a bevy of experts from the Cato Institute point out in the recent book Empowering the New American Worker, policy makers should pursue policies that make employment more flexible—like remote work and gig employment, rather than make it more rigidly defined. And they should recognize that factory jobs are not the best or only path for non-college graduates: Retail managers increasingly command six-figure salaries. Occupational licensing laws that require dozens or hundreds of hours of training before certification to work in a profession have mostly served as barriers to entry for aspiring professionals. Eliminating state licensing boards and licensing types can go a long way to making the work force more accessible. Ending the Jones Act, meanwhile, would not only lower prices for American households: It would also mean the end of regulation-driven shipping emergencies like the one in Puerto Rico.”
“Trump’s rule held that if two good investments graded equally on likely risks and potential returns, ESG factors could serve as a tiebreaker, but, like the vice president’s vote in the Senate, should have no deciding force absent a deadlock.”
…
“”The Biden Rule, like the Trump Rule, confirms the permissibility of ESG investing in pursuit of improved risk-adjusted returns in accordance with prudent investor principles without mandating such an investment strategy,” argue Northwestern’s Max M. Schanzenbach and Harvard’s Robert H. Sitkoff. “ERISA fiduciaries who did not use ESG factors prior to 2022 should feel no greater urgency to begin doing so now. And ERISA fiduciaries who are investing for collateral benefits continue to run the same fiduciary risk as before.””
…
“Nevertheless, politicians—the president among them—have exaggerated the new rule’s immediate policy impact. “It simply states that if fiduciaries wish to consider ESG factors—and if their methods are shown to be prudent—they are free to do so.””
“President Joe Biden ditched Trump’s brawling style. But he is keeping some of the former president’s key policies in place that are disliked by CEOs — including tariffs on imports from China and the EU and pressure on U.S. companies to cut their vast overseas supply chains to manufacture in America.
Biden has also stocked key agencies with people who have dedicated their careers to antitrust enforcement — including Lina Khan at the Federal Trade Commission and Jonathan Kanter at the Justice Department. In the last week alone, regulators have moved to blow up both a proposed airline merger and a major Wall Street deal, while attacking lucrative fees slapped on consumers by banks, cable providers and myriad other businesses.”