The U.S. consumer is pushing back against recession fears once again
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Hawaii State Senator: Did Your Home Insurance Bill Increase? Big Oil Should Pay Up
Imagine getting a letter from your home insurance company explaining that your annual bill was going to be 10 times higher this year, even though you'd never made a claim for damages to your home. Thousands of American homeowners—including many in my home state of Hawaii—don't need to imagine. Last year, insurers in our state drastically raised rates to reflect the increasing threat of extreme weather disasters and to recoup money they had to pay out after the deadly 2023 Maui wildfires. But why should everyday people be asked to shoulder these costs, while an industry that actively made the problem worse pays nothing? Giant fossil fuel corporations predicted decades ago that the unchecked burning of their products could lead to out of control weather disasters, creating chaos in insurance markets. Don't they bear some of the responsibility for making this nightmare a reality? Debris removal at a former apartment building in the Lahaina wildfire impact zone on August 2, 2024, in Lahaina, Hawaii. Debris removal at a former apartment building in the Lahaina wildfire impact zone on August 2, 2024, in Lahaina, shouldn't push the costs of climate change on to their policyholders while letting the companies causing it off the hook. That's why Hawaii is pursuing a fairer model that other states can emulate: make the fossil fuel industry help pick up the tab. Our state recently passed a first of its kind resolution encouraging insurance companies to take Big Oil to court for climate damages before raising rates on their customers. Simply put: fossil fuel-driven climate change is creating a nationwide cost-of-living crisis, especially when it comes to housing. Supercharged wildfires in Los Angeles and Maui and unprecedented flooding in the Carolinas from Hurricane Helene have displaced thousands of Americans. When they do get a check from their insurance company, many find that it only covers a fraction of the cost of rebuilding their homes. Faced with mounting claims, insurance companies are pulling out of entire communities, canceling existing policies, and refusing to issue new policies. Given that insurance is generally required on new mortgages, uninsurable homes are essentially unsellable homes. Mortgage lenders in wildfire-stricken Colorado communities are reporting a rash of home sales falling apart because buyers can't secure insurance. Experts warn that this growing crisis threatens to infect the broader economy. In a recent Senate hearing, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) warned of an "economic cascade" of consequences for real estate markets, and cited a Freddie Mac chief economist predicting that if left unchecked, the insurance crisis could cause "a 2008-style economic recession." We're on track for economic disaster, while fossil fuel industry giants who put us in this position keep raking in billions of dollars in profits. Rather than pulling the rug out from under hardworking families and abandoning entire communities, insurance companies should make the fossil fuel industry pay their fair share of the costs. While they may not seem like the most likely group to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable, insurance companies are already well-practiced in taking bad actors to court for their role in extreme weather disasters. When utilities' unmaintained power lines ignited devastating wildfires in California in 2017 and 2018, insurers successfully forced them to pay up, temporarily reducing the severity of rate increases on homeowners and slowing the trend of insurance companies fleeing the state. Just like the companies who sparked a blaze, the fossil fuel industry bears responsibility for contributing to the soaring high temperatures and drier atmosphere that turn a routine forest fire into a blazing inferno. Researchers who measure climate change's contribution to extreme weather disasters estimate that companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil are each responsible for nearly $2 trillion in economic losses from extreme heat between 1991 and 2020. This isn't a surprise to Big Oil—internal documents show their researchers warning as far back as the 1970s that their products would warm the global climate and fuel "potentially catastrophic events." Industry executives were convinced enough to invest in making their own oil wells and pipelines resilient to climate change, while also working for decades to mislead the public about their products' connection to the problem. That deception continues today, with oil and gas majors proudly advertising their commitment to clean energy while they ramp up the production and burning of fossil fuels. Since 2002, climate change has cost the insurance industry an estimated $600 billion in insured losses, costs that were likely recouped from consumers through higher premiums. The oil and gas industry, which has averaged nearly $3 billion in profit per day, could have covered those losses without breaking a sweat. As policymakers nationwide grapple with a growing insurance crisis, our first priority should be to protect consumers from extreme rate hikes and stabilize markets for insurers. When you make a mess, you clean up after yourself. It's time for the fossil fuel industry to do the same. Chris Lee serves as president of the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a bi-partisan organization of 1,500 state legislators from all 50 states. He has served in the Hawaii State Legislature since 2008, where he authored the nation's first state laws transitioning utilities to 100 percent renewable energy, directing economy-wide carbon neutrality, and targeting zero-emissions transportation. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
McConnell evolves from GOP leader to Senate wild card
Former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) has emerged as one of the biggest wild cards in the Senate, keeping his Republican colleagues guessing about how he'll vote on elements of President Trump's agenda. McConnell has been largely sidelined from important leadership-level discussions since he stepped down as Senate Republican leader at the end of 2024 after a record-setting 18 years in the post, say Senate colleagues. But the crafty veteran senator has used high-profile dissenting votes and carefully timed statements to make his influence felt throughout the Senate GOP conference and to signal when he thinks Trump — and by extension, Trump's allies in Congress — are moving in the wrong direction. In doing so, he's using his leverage to preserve the values of the traditional GOP establishment in Washington. McConnell this week voted against two critical procedural motions to advance a proposal to claw back $9 billion in funding Congress had already appropriated, legislation that was a top priority of Trump and Russell Vought, Trump's controversial leader of the White House budget office. McConnell joined moderate Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), in voting to block the bill from coming to the floor. And he did so with no public warning, playing his cards close to the vest and leaving his colleagues guessing about what he would do. He also voted with Collins and Murkowski for an amendment sponsored by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) to shrink the size of the rescissions package by exempting $496 million for international disaster relief from the cuts. It failed 49 to 50 on an otherwise party-line vote. McConnell threw colleagues another curveball when he voted 'aye' on final passage of the rescissions package. He explained his 'no' vote on the motion to proceed to the bill and his vote to pass the package once it was on the floor as reflecting his reservations about letting the White House dictate spending decisions to Capitol Hill. 'My belief in the importance of American soft power is not in conflict with my commitment to holding government accountable for inefficiency, and I take Congress' responsibility to rein in federal spending seriously,' he said in a statement. 'The Administration's rescissions request is not the way I would prefer to act on this responsibility, but faced with a choice between spending reduction and no reduction, I voted in favor of the rescission.' One GOP senator who requested anonymity applauded McConnell for pushing back against increasing pressure from the White House to carry out its demands for spending cuts, demands that have chaffed Republican members of the Appropriations Committee especially. 'I think it's him being Mitch McConnell as the senior senator from Kentucky, as a leader in the Senate for decades who no longer has the burden of leadership and is just free to be a lawmaker. I think that's what you see in Mitch; I love it,' one senator said. The senator described the Office of Management and Budget's response to senators' concerns about the rescissions package as 'dismissive.' McConnell declared in October he would feel more free to vote his conscience once he stepped down from the Republican leadership role and would have less of an obligation to toe the party's line. 'Here's one way to look at it: Free at last,' McConnell quipped during a talk to the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce. 'What I mean by that, is when you're the leader — if you're smart — you're looking out for everybody else. You also — if you're smart — understand you're going to take all the arrows that are coming in in order to protect your members. 'I'm actually looking forward to the next couple of years to focusing on what I want to focus on,' he said. A couple of Republican senators see McConnell's 'no' votes on the procedural motions to advance the rescissions package as part of a broader trend this year, noting that he also voted for a resolution in April to undo Trump's punitive tariffs against Canada. Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he thought McConnell's votes breaking with the GOP leadership were 'more directed at Trump.' A second Republican senator who requested anonymity to speak on the subject said McConnell doesn't mind sticking Trump in the eye given their rocky relationship, which hit a low point after McConnell refused to endorse Trump's claim that the 2020 election was stolen. McConnell told his biographer, Michael Tackett of The Associated Press, that he thought the 'MAGA movement is completely wrong' and that former President Reagan 'wouldn't recognize' the party today. But he sounded a more conciliatory tone after Trump won a sweeping victory over then-Vice President Kamala Harris in November. 'I want Trump to be successful,' he said right after the election. A person familiar with McConnell's thinking said his 'no' votes have never been about political vengeance and have always been about policy. In addition to voting to unwind Trump's tariff on Canada, McConnell voted against Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's nominees to head the Department of Defense, serve as director of national intelligence, and lead the Department of Health and Human Services, respectively. A few Republican senators saw McConnell's no votes this week as a veiled 'shot' at Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), McConnell's long-time deputy who replaced him as GOP leader at the start of the year. 'I wonder if this rescissions thing is a little bit of a shot at John Thune,' said a third Republican senator who requested anonymity to comment frankly on McConnell's relationship with the new leadership team. 'Thune pretty much sidelined him during the reconciliation debate, which makes sense to me because Thune's the leader now,' the lawmaker said. 'You can tell that McConnell tried to insert himself a couple of different times over the course of the months in meetings. Thune would let him talk but then he would quickly move him aside, he wouldn't comment, he wouldn't engage. 'Why would he vote against rescissions? There's nothing in here that's ideological that would bother him,' the senator said of the votes against proceeding to the bill. 'He's not for public broadcasting money, he's voting against that a bunch of times.' McConnell voted for the $15 billion rescissions package Trump sent to Congress in 2018, when Republicans controlled both chambers and McConnell was Senate majority leader. That package narrowly failed in the Senate by a 48-50 vote. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) called McConnell's votes against motions to discharge the rescissions bill from the Appropriations Committee and to proceed to it on the Senate floor as 'disappointing.' 'Rescissions are a legitimate appropriations process, albeit rarely used,' he said, countering the argument pushed by members of the Appropriations Committee that the White House's request for rescissions undercut congressional spending authority. Cramer suggested that McConnell owes Thune more loyalty after many years of pressing GOP colleagues to stay unified on tough votes when he was the leader. 'As leader, he certainly would have done everything he could to earn our 'yes' vote as part of the team effort,' he said. 'It's certainly disappointing to see him not do that for … John Thune, who was a very, very good and loyal lieutenant.' Cramer said voting for the rescissions package 'is as easy as it gets.' A source familiar with McConnell's relationship with Thune said while the two men have 'different styles,' they both have a lot to offer the GOP conference by working together. 'While Leader Thune and Sen. McConnell … approached the [leader's] role with different styles, they both understand — better than anyone else in the conference — the hurdles and opportunities that come with the job,' the source said. 'They speak frequently, and Leader Thune appreciates and values the unique role Sen. McConnell plays, having served as leader for nearly two decades and now as chair of the Rules Committee and as a senior member of the Appropriations Committee,' the source said. McConnell gave Republican senators a 'pep talk' about sticking together when they held the first vote-a-rama to pave the way for Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act and again urged his colleagues to band together to beat back Democratic attempts to divide them over proposed cuts to Medicaid, according to another source familiar with McConnell's efforts to help Thune get the reconciliation package across the finish line.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Burberry shares pop 8% as British heritage pivot lures back U.S. shoppers
American shoppers are buying into the allure of British heritage fashion, providing a glimmer of hope for beleaguered Burberry's turnaround even as U.S. headwinds loom. Burberry sales in the Americas rose 4% year-on-year in the three months to June 28, the company said Friday in its fiscal first-quarter results. Shares of Burberry were up 8.13% by 11:26 a.m. London time (6:26 a.m. E.T.). The luxury brand, known for its trench coats, attributed the uptick to both new and existing consumers, following a 4% decline in the region in the fourth-quarter and a 9% fall in Burberry's full 2025 fiscal year. CEO Joshua Schulman said the growth indicated the "diversity of the luxury consumer that exists in that market," from elite, high-spenders to high-traffic mall shoppers. The U.S. accounts for 19% of Burberry's business. Nevertheless, Schulman said that Burberry's efforts to position itself as a "luxury brand with broad universal appeal" was showing green shoots in other regions, too. Burberry's overall group revenues declined 1% year-on-year on a comparable basis to £433 million ($ 582million) in the June quarter, compared with the 3% decline analysts had forecast in a company compiled consensus. Sales rose 1% in Europe, the Middle East, India, and Africa (EMEIA) in the June quarter, while declining 5% in the Greater China region and by 4% in Asia Pacific, which the company said was "driven by Japan following a slowdown in tourism." All regions nevertheless demonstrated notable improvements from significant declines in prior quarters. "What we saw in the Americas, we also saw in the other regions as well. Our local customer has been strong globally and we have seen a sequential improvement in all regions," Schulman told a media call on Friday. The results fall against a troubling backdrop for the luxury sector, as U.S. tariffs loom large, threatening to undermine an anticipated revival in U.S. consumer spending, even as the Chinese market continues to lag. Burberry's Chief Financial Officer Kate Ferry acknowledged the tariffs as a "headwind," but said that the company had spent the previous year adapting its supply chains and adjusting pricing where appropriate. "We actually took a very surgical approach to pricing in the U.S. and understood where we had price elasticity," she said on the Friday earnings call. It comes amid a sweeping overhaul of the 169-year-old heritage luxury fashion house. On Friday, it that said a previously announced cost savings program, including 1,700 job cuts announced in May, would results in £80 million in annualized savings by the end of the 2026 financial year. July marks the first anniversary at the helm for Schulman, who joined from Michael Kors and in November announced urgent plans to "course correct" after a prolonged period of the company's share price underperformance, waning sales and a slew of management changes. UBS analysts said in a note Friday that the results provided confidence that Burberry's brand momentum was "accelerating." "Josh got in at the eleventh hour to try and steer the Spring/Summer product in the right direction with this focus on Britishness and on iconic Burberry products, the check pattern, more realistic pricing," Luca Solca, sector head for global luxury goods at Bernstein, sector told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Friday. "The fact that organic growth is improving, while being still negative, I think is a sign that the new marketing vision works. We expect even more good news in the second half when the full winter product is going to fully represent the new marketing approach and that means a lot to investors, clearly."
