Senate Democrats face crossroads in anti-Trump strategy
Why it matters: Top Democrats have hinted the party may not play ball with the GOP on the funding proceedings, risking a government shutdown at the end of September.
It would be a defiant act of revenge for a minority party that's seething with anger over everything from reconciliation to rescissions.
But Democrats have been reluctant to play the shutdown card in the past — and many are on record saying it's irresponsible.
Zoom out: This week will present an early test case for this fall's appropriations showdown.
GOP leaders plan to bring the MilCon-VA funding bill to the floor for a vote. They'll need Democratic support to move forward and at least seven Democratic votes to break a filibuster.
The bill passed committee 26-3, and Schumer said Monday it has "significant reversals to DOGE's horrible cuts." The Senate version of the bill is a higher spending level than the House version, a plus for Democrats.
It's possible Democrats support a procedural vote for the measure, under the pretense they aren't guaranteed to support its passage or further appropriations bills.
Zoom in: Schumer didn't tip his hand during a speech on the Senate floor Monday. Instead, he unloaded on Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Republicans as being "obedient" to President Trump.
"If Leader Thune wants to talk about bipartisanship, he should focus on keeping his side of the street clean first," Schumer said.
Schumer last week warned Thune against pursuing additional rescission packages, saying the GOP would be risking a government shutdown.
What we're hearing: Clear hints from the White House — and outright promises from House leadership — that they are planning more rescissions are further inflaming Senate Democrats.
Trump's Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought raised the temperature last week when he suggested the government funding process should be "less bipartisan."
Democrats were outraged by those comments and the attitude behind them — and they put their GOP colleagues on notice.
"My Republican colleagues should understand that Russ Vought does not respect their constitutional power over federal spending," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said last week.
The bottom line: Democrats are angry with how Trump and Thune have rolled them all year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Pfizer CEO details talks with Trump administration on tariffs, Most Favored Nations pricing
Pfizer (PFE) CEO Albert Bourla said Tuesday he has a "special relationship" with President Trump, cemented during the COVID-19 pandemic when the two were in regular contact to help speed up vaccine production. That relationship, he said, has created a direct line to discuss some of the headwinds the company faces out of Washington, D.C. In his second term, Trump is targeting the drug industry for high prices and overseas production — threatening tariffs as high as 250% on imported drugs. But Bourla told Yahoo Finance he believes Trump and other officials in D.C. are having productive conversations with industry leaders about tariffs and drug pricing. "I think [Trump] is educated, of course he doesn't go into the details, it's not his job, but he understands the dynamics [of the industry]," Bourla said. When asked about the tariff threat, Bourla shared his understanding from his ongoing discussions. "I don't want to speak for the president, but what he said today, which was very important also, was that it would be a very small tariff in the first couple of years. And then he opened the window for a grace period. Because I had this discussion with him and I had this discussion with multiple other members of the administration," Bourla said. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet The industry is awaiting the results of an investigation by the administration into how those tariffs will be implemented — and Bourla said the devil will be in the details. Currently, more than 90% of prescriptions in the US are from generics, which are often the cheapest drug type. Branded drugs are often the most expensive and are largely produced in the US. But some early components of the manufacturing process, key chemicals known as active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), are often made overseas in Europe or Asia. That will be important to understand when the final ruling for the tariffs is made. "We need to understand if the API will dictate the country of origin, or where the final product is made," Bourla said. Pfizer is also one of the companies that received a letter from Trump last week detailing demands to reduce prices for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees to match the lowest price paid by developing nations, known as Most Favored Nations (MFN). The company is currently planning for the implementation of reduced prices, as well as working on how to mitigate negative impacts, Bourla said. "We are still discussing it with the president. ... The devil could be in the details in these stages," he said. Anjalee Khemlani is the senior health reporter at Yahoo Finance, covering all things pharma, insurance, provider services, digital health, PBMs, and health policy and politics. That includes GLP-1s, of course. Follow Anjalee as AnjKhem on social media platforms X, LinkedIn, and Bluesky @AnjKhem. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Tariffs are denting profits, and maybe soon your portfolio
The theme of the moment in financial markets is the resilience of US stock values. President Trump is imposing billions of dollars in new import taxes on US firms, yet the S&P 500 (^GSPC) index is up 26% from its April low and fresh off several record highs. Investors who shunned US assets just a few months ago are now aggressively buying. However, numerous warning signs have emerged during the second quarter earnings season as companies outline the ways Trump's tariffs are hurting profits, disrupting operations, and forcing price hikes onto consumers. Tariffs are not hitting every company, since they mainly affect goods, and many of America's top firms are service providers. But some analysts think the negative tariff effects are widespread enough to take the wind out of stocks soon. With second quarter earnings in for about two-thirds of S&P 500 companies, Yahoo Finance's Grace O'Donnell has identified more than four dozen large firms saying tariffs are impacting their businesses in some material way. Some are able to quantify the monetary effect on earnings. Others expect tariffs to hit their finances but aren't yet sure how. And some CEOs have been blunt about price hikes heading toward consumers. Manufacturers are bearing a large portion of the tariff cost, since many rely on imported components that are now more expensive. Caterpillar (CAT), Kimberly-Clark (KMB), BMW ( Ford (F), Harley-Davidson (HOG), Hyundai (HYMTF), Tesla (TSLA), GE Aerospace (GE), 3M (MMM), and General Motors (GM) are among the companies saying tariffs reduced earnings in the second quarter. Ford, as one example, said tariffs would knock $2 billion off earnings this year. Caterpillar expects a tariff hit of at least $1.3 billion. Kimberly-Clark's tariff loss will be around $170 million. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs It's not just manufacturers. Companies that import products they sell to consumers are suffering too. Apple (AAPL) expects tariffs to cut earnings by nearly $2 billion for the six months through Sept. 30. Hershey (HSY) said tariffs will cost it at least $170 million this year. VF Corp., whose brands include Vans, The North Face, and Timberland, sees a $250 million hit to earnings through 2026. Some of America's biggest consumer goods producers, including Procter & Gamble (PG), Mattel (MAT), Columbia Sportswear (COLM), and L'Oreal (LOR.F), say they'll have no choice but to pass some of their higher costs onto consumers. Many executives discussing the Trump tariffs say it's too soon to assess the impact of import taxes that have only been in place a couple of months, which means a lot more bad news may be in the pipeline. The disconnect in markets right now is that tariff impacts that are causing headline damage for a lot of individual companies don't yet seem to be depressing overall earnings. Roughly 80% of companies reporting their earnings so far have beaten analyst estimates, according to FactSet. That's better than the usual beat ratio. Earnings growth has also been solid, and Wall Street forecasts for the third quarter are even better, despite the tariffs. Solid actual earnings and robust forecasts for future gains are the driving forces motivating investors to buy. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your financesThe question is will it last, and there are several reasons for doubt. Oxford Economics thinks investors are too bullish now because they were too panicky in April and May, when Trump imposed dramatically high tariffs that he has since lowered. Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcements on April 2 triggered a big stock sell-off, which in turn prompted Trump to back down and pause some of those tariffs. The average tariff rate jumped from 2.5% before Trump took office to about 28% after "Liberation Day." Recent changes to Trump's tariff regime brought the average import tax to as low as 14%, then up to about 18%, where it is today. So, the average import tax is now lower than it was in April and May — but still considerably higher than it's been for the past 90 years. That will still sting. "Margin resilience [is] unlikely to last," Oxford economists noted in an Aug. 5 analysis. "We think margin pressures will build throughout the second half of the year as the effective tariff rate continues to move higher, businesses deplete front-run inventories, and domestic demand softens." Bloomberg recently reported that several Wall Street money managers, including Morgan Stanley, Evercore ISI, and Deutsche Bank, are warning clients that a stock pullback of 10% to 15% could be on the horizon. Trump's trade wars are the biggest concern, as the rising toll of import taxes further damages profits, raises prices, reins in spending, and depresses growth. The sharp slowdown in job growth during the past three months may be a harbinger of worse to come. The average pace of job gains from May through July was just 35,000, an 80% decline from the 2024 pace. Trump got so angry over those numbers that he fired the government economist who oversees the employment report. But the real problem is Trump's own policies, and he can't fire every CEO who needs to explain how tariffs are harming profits. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
How US jobs data is collected — and why it's regularly revised
Recent data on the health of the nation's job market cost Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, her own employment after President Trump lashed out when revisions to earlier months' numbers suggested the economy could be in worse shape than previously thought. 'Last weeks Job's Report was RIGGED,' Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday. The July employment numbers, released last week, showed the US added 258,000 fewer jobs in May and June than what was reported previously. Economists were quick to note the changes, while larger than normal, are routine, factoring in survey data from employers that's slower to arrive, while Trump's actions risk politicizing a crucial economic indicator. Here's how the jobs report is pieced together and why data within it is regularly updated. How 'jobs data' works Every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes an 'employment situation' report that includes employment, hours, and wage data for workers on nonfarm payrolls from an 'establishment survey' of businesses representing varied sectors of the economy. The report also includes data from a separate 'household survey' on the labor force, employment, and unemployment. The report is closely watched by economists, traders, and businesspeople because it can move markets, influence monetary policy, and reflect the overall health of the economy. The revisions that upset Trump were from the establishment survey, which relies on a survey of about 121,000 businesses and government agencies across the week or pay period that includes the 12th of the month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Estimated data from this survey is always revised twice in the succeeding two months after it's initially published 'to incorporate additional sample receipts from respondents in the survey and recalculated seasonal adjustment factors,' the BLS says in a 'frequently asked questions' page. Put simply, some businesses are slow to respond, so their survey answers are added as they're received, leading to revisions — up or down — in the estimates of new jobs. Importantly, the most recent revisions were within the BLS's confidence interval — the measure of uncertainty in its own estimates — of 'plus or minus 136,000' for the monthly change in total nonfarm employment, said Ryan Sweet, chief US economist at Oxford Economics. May payroll data was revised down by 125,000 jobs to 19,000 jobs gained, while June was revised down by 133,000 to 14,000 jobs gained. Sweet noted that 'if you look at the size of the revisions relative to total employment, they're not significantly larger than what we've seen historically.' In a blog post earlier this year, Michael Madowitz, principal economist for the Roosevelt Institute, wrote that while revisions can lead to some confusion, it's worth reflecting on 'why incurring some temporary confusion, in this case, contributes to the universally respected economic statistics that are central to the long-term stability of the US financial system.' The BLS is showing its work, he noted, which is a good thing. The payroll estimates from establishment surveys are also revised annually to account for wage and employment data from state unemployment insurance tax records. One of these revisions made waves last August when the BLS announced the economy had 818,000 fewer positions in the 12 months ending in March 2024 than initially reported, though that revision itself was also revised earlier this year to 598,000 fewer jobs. Trump has referenced the 818,000 data point as another example of what he perceives as data manipulation to favor Democrats, though it wasn't exactly great news for the Biden administration. 'We were pretty devastated that in August of 2024 in an election year — right kind of in the home stretch there when people were starting to pay attention — BLS did its annual benchmark revision and found that we had added 800,000 fewer jobs than we had thought at that point,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive group. Why are the revisions happening? A bigger likely problem than data manipulation is fewer businesses answering the survey. Response rates for the establishment survey have declined sharply in recent years, leading to some worries that the data is becoming more vulnerable to errors. Still, researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco wrote in March of the monthly employment gains through 2024 that 'despite the substantial decline in response rates, the incoming data are reassuringly not subject to greater noise, and thus greater uncertainty, than in the past.' But 'it's becoming less of a clear picture of how the labor market is doing in the first estimate' due to the lower survey responses, Sweet said. That's not a knock on the BLS, he added. 'These revisions are normal,' Sweet said. 'It's the nature of the beast of trying to measure a $30 trillion economy.' Additionally, big revisions have occurred in other times of economic weirdness, including the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. 'This is why we had massive upwards revisions in the early months of the Biden administration, when a ton of people were coming back into the labor force after COVID lockdowns,' Jacquez said. The US indeed has some weirdness right now, including tariffs, business uncertainty, and immigrant workers leaving the labor force. '(Major revisions) tend to coincide with idiosyncratic times in the labor market, which would make sense. If there's a big recession, there's a bunch of churn and a bunch of things happening in the labor market that wouldn't normally be captured by the standard analysis and regressions that you pull out of the data,' he added. Sign up for the Mind Your Money weekly newsletter By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Keep watch That's not to say the revisions aren't worth examining, though: the two-month revision was the biggest since 1968 when excluding recessions, economists at Goldman Sachs have said, and could point to some strain in the economy. Even before the most recent jobs report, economists had been watching for recession risks and a slowing job market, making reliable data all the more crucial. In a video appearance on Yahoo Finance, William Beach, McEntarfer's predecessor, said the BLS commissioner has nothing to do with the estimation or preparation of the jobs data, but 'the damage is done' — people who don't follow the BLS that closely may struggle to trust the numbers. 'We're going to take a long time to recover from this,' Beach said. Emma Ockerman is a reporter covering the economy and labor for Yahoo Finance. You can reach her at Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter
