New Sam's Club to open in San Joaquin County
(FOX40.COM) — A new Sam's Club is coming to San Joaquin County and local leaders are calling it a 'win for the community.'
Sam's Club is a leading national membership retailer with nearly 600 locations throughout the United States. The company selected Lathrop as the site of its newest location in California. It will be located in Stanford Crossing, a new commercial shopping center by Saybrook Fund Advisors along Interstate 5.
Camping World location closes amid controversy over flying American flag
'Lathrop's position as California's fastest-growing city makes it an ideal location for retailers,'said Lathrop Mayor Paul Akinjo. 'This is a major win for the community, and we are excited towelcome Sam's Club with open arms.'
Sam's Club President and CEO, Chris Nicholas, recently detailed the company'snationwide growth strategy. According to a press release, Sam's Club plans to open about 15 new clubs per year while remodeling all of its locations.
It is unclear when the Lathrop location will open, however, officials said a timeline for construction will be released within the next few months.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: The looming import shortage
Few people pay attention to import and export data, which are among the weedier metrics of the economy's health. But these wonky numbers are giving some startling insights into the challenges everyday shoppers may be facing in a month or two or three. Imports plummeted in April, falling by 20% from the prior month. That's the biggest decline in data going back to 1992. It's considerably worse than the drop in imports at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Does anybody remember what shopping was like during COVID? Aside from the masks and sanitizer, there were widespread product shortages followed by soaring inflation. People didn't mind at first, since many were stuck at home without much to do. But inflation got quite irksome after a couple of years, and it sank Joe Biden's presidency, along with Democratic electoral odds in 2024. We're not yet facing COVID-style shortages. But we might be if President Trump's trade war drags on through the fall and summer. Imports plunged in April because that's when Trump started slapping new import taxes on practically every product entering the United States. So far, Trump has raised the average tariff tax on imports from 2.5% to about 18%. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Prices haven't shot up yet because many of the American companies that import goods saw this coming and stocked up ahead of the Trump tariffs. Imports jumped by a record amount in January and were elevated for the first quarter as a whole. Swollen inventories have kept supplies ample and prices in check. If April represents the new trend line, however, a sharp drop in imports will inevitably lead to higher prices and some shortages. 'The impact of tariffs will continue to reverse progress on returning inflation to 2%,' Goldman Sachs explained in a recent analysis. 'Our forecast reflects a sharp acceleration in most core goods categories, where tariff-related increases in prices will be most acute in consumer electronics, autos, and apparel.' The firm expects overall inflation to rise from 2.3% now to 3.5% by importers are handling the Trump tariffs in a variety of ways. Some are taking normal delivery of goods and paying the higher taxes. We know that because tariff revenue collected by the government soared in April and May. The higher cost of imports will eventually make its way to consumers via higher prices. Many other importers have canceled or postponed orders, hoping that Trump will make trade deals and future tariffs will be lower than current ones. They're also watching two high-profile cases in which courts have said some of Trump's tariffs are illegal, while leaving them in place until appeals play out. Trump himself controls much of what happens next. He has set a July 9 deadline for dozens of countries to initiate trade concessions, or else a punishing round of 'reciprocal' tariffs will go into effect, on top of those Trump has already imposed. Some business owners hope for greater clarity by then, though the July 9 deadline is arbitrary and Trump could change it. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs Once current inventories are gone, the rest of 2025 could be rocky. 'Our perspective in terms of how this will affect manufacturers and workers is that we'll see a replay of the initial COVID shock,' Jason Judd, executive director of the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University, told Yahoo Finance. 'It may not be as severe, depending on the distribution of the pain. If Trump comes back with a 40% tariff on apparel, that would feel like a COVID-era shock.' Trump, for his part, acts like everything is hunky-dory under his watch. 'America is hot!' he said on social media on June 6. 'Border is secure, prices are down. Wages are up!' That came after the employment report for May showed the economy created a middling 139,000 new jobs. Many economists, however, think America is cooling. The pace of job growth has slowed this year, the economy technically shrank in the first quarter, and the stock market has been flat in 2025. Trump's tariffs already seem to be punishing the manufacturing sector, which lost 8,000 jobs in May and is in a three-month slump. If that's 'hot,' a cold Trump economy is likely to be miserable. 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.
Politico
41 minutes ago
- Politico
The Ideological Schism Fueling the Trump-Musk Fight
Amid the fallout of the messy public feud between Doland Trump and Elon Musk, it is instructive to think back to Dec. 26, 2024. That day marked the start of another intra-GOP skirmish that nearly fractured the elite core of the MAGA coalition. The December brawl — which, like the latest one, unfolded primarily online — pitted two high-profile factions of the Trumpian right against one another over the issue of high-skilled immigration. The nationalist-populist right, led by MAGA strategist Steve Bannon, urged the incoming administration to end the H-1B visa program as part of a broader crackdown on immigration. The so-called tech right, led by Musk, wanted Trump to defend the program on the grounds that high-skilled immigration is integral to spurring economic growth and fueling 'American dynamism.' Ultimately, the tech right carried the day, with Trump intervening in the online spat to defend the H-1B program. After the feud, the two sides struck a tentative peace, and the contretemps quieted down as Trump reentered office. But the renewal of hostilities between Trump and Musk this week shows that the underlying ideological disagreement between the two factions was never really resolved. And despite all the current bluster about the 'big, beautiful' spending bill, the Epstein files, the ballooning national debt and Musk and Trump's overlarge egos, that divide still runs straight through the same issue that carved up the factions back in December: immigration. That may seem counterintuitive, given that the latest blow-up between Trump and Musk is ostensibly over the fiscal consequences of Trump's megabill — and specifically Musk's contention, supported by independent analyses but rejected by the Trump administration, that the bill would add significantly to the federal debt. But when you strip away all the salacious controversies swirling around the 'BBB,' the fight over the legislation ultimately boils down to the question of whether cracking down on immigration should stand alone as the Trump administration's guiding priority. In the eyes of the MAGA populists, the $155 billion that the BBB appropriates for immigration enforcement and Trump's mass deportation efforts more than justify its passage, whatever its fiscal shortcomings might be. As Stephen Miller, the populist right's go-to immigration hawk, recently put it, the bill includes 'the most significant border security and deportation effort in history' — a fact which 'alone makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' That immigration is at the center of the administration's pitch for the bill should come as no surprise. Since 2016, the issue has been the ideological keystone around which Trump has built his protean and sometimes unwieldy coalition. During the 2024 campaign, Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, proposed solving practically every issue that was thrown their way — from the housing shortage to inflation to 'wokeness' — by tying it back to their promised immigration crackdown. Once in office, the president's first acts included claiming unprecedented emergency authority to carry out his plan for mass deportations. But the centrality of immigration created tension as Musk and his fellow travelers on the tech right began to enter MAGA fold in the leadup to the 2024 election. The tech right threw its weight behind Trump's proposed agenda on immigration, but it was never the group's top priority. Much more important for MAGA's tech faction was taming the federal deficit, which Musk and others moguls — notably Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel — continue to view as an existential threat to the country's future. Their anxiety about the federal debt is rooted as much in their libertarianism as it is in their self-interest: every dollar the federal government spends servicing the federal debt is a dollar that it does not invest in the supposedly revolutionary technologies — backed by their firms — that they believe will lead to true 'American dynamism.' The misalignment between the priorities of the populist right and the tech right was clear from the start. It was apparent to Miller, who just this week raged that 'you will never live a day in your life where a libertarian cares as much about immigration and sovereignty as they do about the Congressional Budget Office.' It was also apparent to Vance — a perceptive observer of the coalitional dynamics within the MAGA movement — who dedicated an entire speech earlier this spring to arguing that immigration restriction and technological innovation could be mutually-reinforcing goals. 'This idea that tech-forward people and the populists are somehow inevitably going to come to a loggerhead is wrong,' said Vance, identifying himself as 'a proud member of both tribes.' Vance, it turns out, was wrong. To the contrary, the Trump-Musk schism is proof that MAGA loyalists can't have their cake and eat it too. They must choose — a maximalist immigration crackdown, or something else. The vengeance with which the populist right has turned on Musk since his spat with Trump is proof of what happens when a Trump ally — even the richest man on Planet Earth — chooses something else. That the fight really hinged on immigration became clear from the commentary coming out of the populist right. 'Debt is BAD. The migrant crisis is orders of magnitude worse,' posted the activist Charlie Kirk in the midst of the blowup. 'I've never seen debt hold an apartment building hostage,' added another conservative commentator, referring to reports of gang-occupied apartment buildings in Colorado. Then there was Bannon himself, who responded to the feud by suggesting — what else? — that Trump should deport Musk. The near-term consequences of the Trump-Musk schism remain to be seen. Whispers of peace talks between Trump and Musk flitted around Washington on Friday, and Trump has publicly downplayed the significance of the skirmish. At this point, no other big names on the tech right have followed Musk in breaking from Trump. And even if Musk were to actively challenge Trump's GOP — by funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents or even trying to start his own party, as he hinted at on Thursday — the consequences would likely be less dire for the future of the MAGA movement than he might think. Vance, the presumptive heir to the MAGA throne, has been building his own independent fundraising network since 2022, which could insulate him from any Musk-related financial aftershocks. Vance 2028 would certainly like to have access to Musk's campaign dollars, but it's not reliant on them. In the long run, though, the Trump-Musk feud will cement immigration as the critical litmus test for membership in Trump's GOP. The critical ideological fault line within the MAGA movement runs between people who view immigration restriction as a means to an end and those who see it as an end in themselves. The thrashing of Elon Musk is a warning to anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of that divide.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up So it's basically a wash. Advertisement That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. Advertisement 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Advertisement Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. Advertisement 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
