Latest news with #MatthewRose
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Former EastEnders star Joe Absalom looks totally unrecognisable as he joins the cast of Emmerdale
Former EastEnders star Joe Absalom is returning to our screens this summer on Emmerdale - and he looks unrecognisable 25 years after he left the BBC soap. The actor, 46, played Matthew Rose, a character who was framed for the murder of Saskia Duncan (Deborah Sheridan-Taylor), in Walford more than a quarter of a century ago between 1997 and 2000. He has since starred in a number of different shows, including ITV 's Doc Martin as AI large and Casualty. The actor is now making his return to soap television, joining the cast of Emmerdale as Ray, an old contact of the Mackenzie family who turns out to be a drug dealer. And in new photos released by ITV to promote his new gig, Joe looked understandably unrecognisable from his time in Walford all those years ago. From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new Showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. The actor, who had long floppy hair and a freshly shaven face when he played Matthew, is now sporting a shorter trim and a shaped grey beard. He's a far cry from his previous boyish visage and mousy middle-parting, with his salt and pepper locks giving him a decidedly more rugged look. Ahead of his debut on Emmerdale farm, the show's producer Laura Shaw said: 'We are thrilled to welcome Joe Absalom to the cast. 'It's fantastic to have such a high calibre and immensely talented actor join our wonderful team to play the role of Ray. 'Charming, charismatic and effortlessly likeable, Ray is an extremely complex character who very quickly shows his dark and villainous side to some of our most loved villagers, leaving them in no doubt as to what he's capable of.' Joe commented: 'Well what an honour to join such a talented team at Emmerdale! It's an iconic show and I'm grateful to be part of it. I can't wait to see what's in stock for Ray!' Recently the actor has been spotted in ITV's new crime drama Code Of Silence, which premiered on Sunday May 18. The six-part series sees a deaf waitress (Rose Ayling-Ellis) pulled into an investigation to help with her lip-reading skills. Joe stars in the gripping thriller as Braden Moore. ITV's announcement that the 46-year-old Brit will be joining Emmerdale comes on the same week that the broadcaster poached another seasoned BBC soap actor. Jaye Griffiths, 61, who previously starred in Casualty and Doctors, will be joining the northern-based soap as a farmer called Celia in the coming months. Her alter-ego, who is renting a neighbouring farm from Kim Tate, is introduced when she enquires about renting two of Moira Dingle (Natalie J. Robb) fields - but Moira isn't interested. Moira is later glad she didn't give in when Paddy Kirk (Dominic Brunt) is viciously attacked by Celia's guard dogs under suspicious circumstances. Speaking about her upcoming role, Jaye said: 'I was delighted to get this role - without giving the game away she is very different to anyone I have played before and I can't wait to really get into the heart of her storyline.' Earlier this month it was revealed Coronation Street and Emmerdale are set to make soap history with a landmark crossover episode. Fans of the ITV soaps will be over the moon to know that characters from Weatherfield and The Dales will be teaming up for a dramatic stunt that will change their lives forever. The crossover, which will be a one-off special hour-long episode, is to mark the channel's new power hour of soap - which starts in January next year. The new collaboration is set to launch the new ITV1 and STV scheduling pattern. ITV's press release explains: 'The distinctive worlds of Emmerdale and Coronation Street will merge for one night only in a 'mash-up' of our two favourite communities. 'The producers, scriptwriters and production teams have conceived an ingenious way of linking the two universes, but with characters then returning to the soaps they are renowned for inhabiting in Manchester and Yorkshire. 'The episode will be self-contained, but the consequences of the high-stakes drama will have repercussions for both communities and see them linked forever as familiar faces depart and exciting new characters arrive into both soaps.' Emmerdale airs on ITV1 and is available to stream on ITVX.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Activists hold 'die-in' at HHS to protest Trump health care cuts: in photos
Courtesy Human Rights Campaign Human Rights Campaign stages die-In in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to protest Trump health care cuts, Washington, D.C., April 24, 2025 The Human Rights Campaign held a 'die-in' Thursday in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to protest the Trump administration's cuts to HHS programs. The cuts target programs and research on a wide variety of social and public health issues, including sexually transmitted infections, mental health, suicide prevention, gender-affirming care, cancer prevention, elder care, substance use, harm reduction, and homelessness, will result in far-reaching, deadly consequences for the LGBTQ+ community, especially for the thousands of Black and Latiné gay and bisexual men and transgender women who are disproportionately affected by HIV, an HRC press release says. With the elimination of 10,000 HHS employees, programs being cut include STI and HIV surveillance and response teams; a group that worked to expand access to pre-exposure prophylaxis; the Medical Monitoring Project, which tracked vital data on people living with HIV, including treatment effectiveness and viral suppression rates; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's collection of data on the use of long-acting HIV treatments and clinical care visits; HIV public awareness campaigns; and the HIV Science Translation Branch, which translated scientific advancements in HIV prevention and treatment into real-world interventions. At the die-in, while a narrator slowly read through a list of devastating health outcomes that HHS funding cuts will have on the LGBTQ+ community, over 100 participants fell to the ground, symbolizing the thousands of LGBTQ+ individuals who will die because of the Trump administration's actions. 'Every person here represents countless other stories. Countless lives. Countless possibilities. And as the federal government cuts funding — from research to housing, from mental health to Medicaid — we're not just watching systems disappear. We're watching lives disappear,' HRC Senior Public Policy Advocate Matthew Rose said in the release. 'But LGBTQ+ people will always be here. We are still here. In defiance. In community. In truth.' Scroll on for more pictures from the protest. Courtesy Human Rights Campaign Human Rights Campaign stages die-In in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to protest Trump health care cuts, Washington, D.C., April 24, 2025 Courtesy Human Rights Campaign Human Rights Campaign stages die-In in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to protest Trump health care cuts, Washington, D.C., April 24, 2025 Courtesy Human Rights Campaign Human Rights Campaign stages die-In in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to protest Trump health care cuts, Washington, D.C., April 24, 2025 Courtesy Human Rights Campaign Human Rights Campaign stages die-In in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to protest Trump health care cuts, Washington, D.C., April 24, 2025 Courtesy Human Rights Campaign Human Rights Campaign stages die-In in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to protest Trump health care cuts, Washington, D.C., April 24, 2025
New York Times
11-04-2025
- Business
- New York Times
‘This Mindless Flailing Creates Recessions': Four Economists Dissect Trump's Tariffs
Matthew Rose, an Opinion editorial director, hosted an online conversation with four economists about President Trump's on-again, off-again tariff plan and the whirlwind it unleashed. Matthew Rose: Well, that was a lot. Seven days after they were announced and less than one day after they went into effect, the Trump administration put on hold the broadest of its tariffs. I don't know about you all, but my head is spinning. The most dramatic effort to remake the post-World War II trade system was underway — until it wasn't. Maybe it's best to start with first principles. We still have a 10 percent tariff rate on all countries, a gargantuan trade standoff with China and the prospect that the other tariffs snap back in July. Oren, you wrote recently in a guest essay that the idea behind the policy was sound, even if the implementation was not. Why do you think these tariffs make sense? Oren Cass: I would divide the regime into three elements. The 10 percent global tariff that remains is something I support because the United States has been running large trade deficits that have weakened domestic manufacturing. Second, when it comes to China, I don't think it's possible to have a constructive economic relationship with an authoritarian communist state, and so we need to decouple our economies. I wouldn't do that overnight, but I think high and permanent tariffs are appropriate. Finally, when it comes to the paused reciprocal tariffs, I would classify them as 'negotiating tariffs,' as the president confirmed on Wednesday. A good example of what he likely has in mind is what Reagan did with the Japanese in the early 1980s, forcing them to shift Toyota and Honda production to America. These tariffs would ideally remain as credible threats, rather than blanket and permanent. Rose: Jason, in your own guest essay on tariffs, you described the reasoning behind reciprocal tariffs as 'obviously absurd.' Where do you part ways with Oren? Jason Furman: If you combine all the remaining tariffs, you're still talking about an overall rate in the 20s, well above anything seen in the United States for over a century, or in any other major country in the world today. This has been unleashed by a misunderstanding of basic economics, which starts with imports. They're good, not bad. They're good for consumers who buy products we barely produce, like bananas. They're good for industries that rely on imported parts to make their products. Any attempt to curb imports also reduces exports. And exports are also good because they let Americans work in higher-paid, more productive jobs. One place I agree with Oren is the implementation has been a disaster. But let's not make tariffs like communism, something people argued was good in theory but bad in practice. If you have a policy with an extremely narrow path to perfect implementation that goes awry, maybe blame the idea, not the implementer. Lawrence H. Summers: It's just wrong to think that trade barriers reduce trade deficits. Think of India before its recent reforms, or Argentina at many moments as examples of countries with high tariffs and, frequently, large trade deficits. Also, Oren and the president forget what Jason mentioned, that many imports contribute to our own exports, and so we hurt our competitiveness. Roughly 55 times more workers are employed in industries that use steel and aluminum to make other products, compared with those that produce it. Lastly, it's essential to remember you can't have much-needed foreign capital flow into our country without having a trade deficit. Rebecca Patterson: I keep going back to President Trump's goal of increasing jobs in American manufacturing. There are structural elements missing if he wants to succeed. American manufacturing businesses consistently point to a lack of qualified or available workers as a problem holding them back. We need to think about finding more manufacturing labor and training them for the jobs of tomorrow. We don't have enough interested workers now. How will we have enough if and when jobs return to the United States? That needs to be part of the conversation. Rose: One observation made about the president is his ability to pinpoint problems (leaving aside the quality of his solutions). In this case, it would be 40 years of trade policy that has disproportionately benefited Chinese workers over American ones, hollowed out industrial regions and contributed to gaping wealth inequalities. Does he have a point, especially now that China appears to be the primary target? Cass: Yes, I think it's an incredibly important point, and one that went overlooked by economists for too long. My starting point in these debates is to emphasize that making things matters, and so our trade policy has to be one that attempts to expand trade as much as possible while ensuring overall balance, so that we actually trade things we make here for things made in other places. That is the classical economic case for trade benefiting both sides, and a constraint we abandoned, especially in the case of China, when we adopted the approach that trade was just about maximizing consumption and that moving production abroad to get more cheap stuff was a good in and of itself. Summers: The problem is that protectionism creates, for example, textile jobs at the expense of high-tech manufacturing jobs. The problem is also that this mindless flailing creates recessions, which hurt almost all of Oren's objectives. If the Trump administration were even half coherent about Oren's objectives, it would be cheering for the CHIPS and Science Act, not opposing it. Yes, we should be doing all kinds of things to promote creation of good jobs in places that are struggling. Declaring economic war on the world and setting off a once-every-two-decade-level financial turmoil is not one of them. Cass: Obviously, we agree on that. I just think it's very important to speak accurately about what free trade has and has not accomplished. The pitch was absolutely: China will compete for some low-wage jobs with Americans. And its market will provide jobs for higher-wage, more skilled people. And that's a bargain for us, to quote the economist Robert Solow. I have not seen much of a reckoning among economists that this simply did not happen as promised, or to the extent it did, those 'more skilled people' were very different people than the ones left behind. Patterson: I think we have to acknowledge the timing and political challenges of this policy approach. For most businesses with global supply chains, building new plants in America is a very expensive proposition and a multiyear process. It's not taken lightly and won't provide tangible employment results quickly. If companies think that a new administration could reverse these tariffs in a few years, reshoring may not be worth the cost. I worry we won't see as much return on this policy investment as some hope for the workers in question. Furman: There is also a danger in overstating the problems in the economy, which was in the premise of Matthew's question. First, the issues with manufacturing are not new — Billy Joel sang 'We're living here in Allentown and they're closing all the factories down' in 1982, long before NAFTA or the rise of China. The main issue then, as it is now, is that technology was rapidly improving, which meant we could produce more with fewer workers. Also, even allowing for the hit from inflation, incomes have been rising reasonably robustly in the United States for the past decade. In fact, wage inequality has been narrowing as the lowest-wage workers get bigger raises than their high-wage counterparts. So we should not think we were living in a hellscape that needed radical change. There is something to small-c conservatism, because if you make big, radical changes, you might get lucky and improve things, but you can also break something, which is what we're seeing now. Rose: So let's spin this forward a little. In 90 days, let's assume the more dramatic tariffs swing back into play. Where does that leave the United States in a year? In four years? Summers: Unemployment will be well above 6 percent. Business investment will have collapsed. There will be serious breakdowns somewhere in financial markets, and markets will fall at least 25 percent from where they are today. Sledgehammers and delicate machinery are a very bad combination. We will get the trade deficit down with the same basic economic force that Venezuela uses, by making ourselves very unattractive as a place to put capital. That will undo much of the relative progress of the economy over the past generation. Patterson: If we have tariffs anywhere like these at the end of President Trump's term, one thing I would be confident about is that our global alliances will be weaker, which will hurt us over time in material ways. Foreign direct investment creates millions of American jobs. And our economic statecraft, such as sanctions on Russia, is more effective if we work with overseas partners. We risk losing global trust. Furman: I agree, Rebecca. Four years from now we'll have a new president. But no matter who it is or what that person does, the world will not have forgotten how dramatically American international economic policies can change. In the meantime, China is aggressively marketing itself as the stable, predictable, reliable international partner. We will be remaking the global economy, but not to our liking. Rose: What about now? Are there costs from this rapid reversal of what was supposed to be a permanent change to the global order? Cass: I think it's a mistake to interpret the suspension of reciprocal tariffs as a reversal of something that was supposed to be permanent. My hope was they would be used as a backstop for negotiations rather than kicking in from the start, because I do believe in the broader project and want it to work. This is exactly what the president did. It's OK to acknowledge when he takes a positive step. Patterson: I'm not so sure. Near term, the continuing lack of clarity around the ultimate tariff rates could keep investors skittish and businesses cautious. Longer term, other countries are getting the message they need to rethink their reliance on the United States. I don't mean abandoning America — after all, it's the world's biggest consumer market. But we could see other alliances forming that chip away at its geoeconomic leverage. Furman: Reversal is not the word I would use. It was a partial reversal on about 70 countries, but a dramatic escalation on China. Of course, that China tariff could well fall in the future — we'll see. More important, as Rebecca mentioned, the biggest economic problem now is uncertainty. There is the possibility that tariffs rise again in 90 days — or really, whenever Mr. Trump posts on social media. It goes both ways, too. Jaguar suspended exports to the United States because it is betting that tariffs might actually fall in the future. It is hard to contain that. Summers: I agree with Jason. By any standard except 'Liberation Day,' the tariffs remaining are massive. The core idea of tariffs as a device to extort concessions remains. Even if none of the suspended tariffs are ever put in place, we are still above Smoot-Hawley levels, and that will meaningfully increase inflation and unemployment. What is especially troubling about this episode is that the boundaries of possible trade policy have been widened to include degrees of protectionism and policy variability that would have been unthinkable even during the first Trump administration. Rose: Let's talk about the market gyrations. In a crisis, investors typically would rush to put their money into Treasuries or the dollar, because they're considered safe. And before the tariffs were lifted, the opposite was happening. The dollar was getting weaker when it should be getting stronger, and interest rates on longer-term bonds were rising sharply when they should have been falling. Rebecca, you've written about the dangers to America's economic exceptionalism, especially its low borrowing costs. How worried should we be today? Patterson: The past few days, before the pause, felt like a dash for cash as much as anything. Investors were selling what they could to have liquidity. What concerns me more now is the increasing potential for U.S. Treasury yields to settle at a higher level, because of our fiscal picture even more than the trade war. Higher Treasury yields create higher borrowing costs, which are felt across financial markets and the economy. My mortgage and auto loan rates go up. It costs more to borrow to grow my business. Summers: I hope, Rebecca, you are right about what happened. Almost all the moments of dramatic stock price declines and Treasury market drama have had pretty disastrous sequels: the 1987 crash, the 2008 financial crisis, the pandemic. At least they were not caused by the U.S. government. I'd guess somehow things will get back to OK. But I think there is a real chance that Mr. Trump's trade policies will be to the dollar what the 1956 Suez crisis was to the British pound — a dramatic break that ultimately portends higher borrowing costs, less investment and more stagnation. Just on Wednesday the dollar fell dramatically. Rose: At the same time, you hear from parts of the administration that driving down the dollar's value is in fact a goal, because it makes American exports more competitive. Cass: That's because the dollar's status as an overvalued reserve currency has been a mixed blessing at best, and at this point has become more of a burden. That said, disruption has costs, especially with a transformation of this magnitude. It's important to act in a way that minimizes the costs where possible (clear communication, gradual phase-ins) and maximizes the potential benefits (certainty on long-term policy environment, trading relationships). Patterson: Oren, I agree with you that the dollar today is overvalued. But when I look at some of the proposals from Washington to make the currency more competitive, they have some pretty material potential costs. Further, the dollar has been strong because the United States has been exceptional — our growth has been much faster than most other countries, our companies more attractive. Foreigners buying our stocks have created household wealth and pushed down borrowing costs for Americans. Of course, not everyone has benefited from those wealth gains equally, and that is something the government can help address, but overall, it's still a good thing. Furman: I agree with Oren that the dollar's strong value is mixed — good for American consumers, but does result in fewer exports. On balance, I would take that deal — plus the lower borrowing costs we get from what was (at least until recently) our exorbitant privilege. Anyone who wants to change it needs to level with people that this adjustment would lower a living standard for the majority of Americans that is currently being enabled by the stronger dollar. Summers: It may be that the dollar is too strong, but actively trying to make it go down is very dangerous in an economy already having confidence issues. Policy can't control the dollar except in the very limited sense of being able to crash it by causing a confidence crisis, which no one sane would suggest. The dollar-down advocates would do well to study the antecedents of the 1987 crash, where sparring of this kind between the United States and West Germany in the week before Oct. 19 is often regarded as an important causal factor. Rose: Is one possible explanation — and it's early for sure — that investors simply have less faith in the long-term viability of the U.S. economy or the ability of the political system to steward it? And that the back and forth over tariffs underscores their concerns? Furman: Yes. There has been an across-the-board re-evaluation of President Trump. If he didn't care about markets on this, then he might not on other issues, such as the independence of the Federal Reserve. Dropping some tariffs has helped a little but won't fully solve the problem. In 2022, Prime Minister Liz Truss of Britain caused a market meltdown with her minibudget proposal. Even after she retracted it, markets were afraid of what she might do next. It was only her resignation that calmed things down. That won't (and shouldn't) happen here, but Congress or the courts could take the tariff toy away from the president, and that might have a similar effect in restoring at least some confidence. Summers: We have an extremely complex machine that is not functioning perfectly, as Oren reminds us. But once we have taken a sledgehammer to the machine, there will be long-term worry about its functioning. Does anyone doubt that we are seeing an unprecedented level of raw, blustering incompetence that is having catastrophic effects? Patterson: I think the reaction by the markets, business community and even Republican members of Congress in the days before the pause underscores that process matters. No one doubts that the government can and should do better for American companies and people. But how best to move forward? A process that decreases household wealth and corporate valuations and puts into question our alliances can't possibly be optimal. And yes, it could chip away at the trust in U.S. assets, including the dollar and Treasury bonds. Rose: I know it's unfair to ask you to speculate on how the Trump White House might act, but the impact is so stunning, it's worth discussing. What happens to the reciprocal tariffs in 90 days? And if they come back, what's the likely impact? Cass: A benefit of the 90-day suspension is that next steps are likely to be staggered. I would expect the administration to reach several deals with major partners. They could also begin signaling different expectations for smaller countries with immaterial imbalances, such as help with isolating China. There's a good chance we see a couple of cases of brinkmanship, or perhaps even a couple of 'failures' that allow the president to show his willingness to impose tariffs. We'd be able to do all that in a way that is not nearly as disruptive or costly as the Liberation Day blitz. Furman: The bigger question is what happens to China tariffs. They represent a massive and rapid change to the United States' third most important trade relationship. China is retaliating, and it is not clear what will calm this process down. As for the others, it is possible we get some good deals. More likely we get face-saving minor compromises. No matter how this shakes out, I would be surprised if we end up with an average tariff rate much below 12 percent. The two most economically successful countries with populations over one million with tariffs at that rate are Iran and Venezuela. Patterson: It's been fascinating in recent days to see how violently the markets are swinging — in both directions — on tariff news and speculation. I also assume some deals will be reached and perhaps some tariffs will be lowered. Investors may initially express relief. But as Jason notes, we'd still potentially be in a new world with higher base-line tariffs. Summers: I hope I am wrong, but I am pretty pessimistic. In the best case, we are still imposing a major supply shock on the economy. Given the administration's track record, it would be amazing if the 90 days go by without further policy announcements that add to uncertainty. The China situation may spiral out of control and lead China to take steps outside the trade realm, such as selling U.S. financial securities in destabilizing ways or taking measures directed at Taiwan and its export of semiconductors. Furman: It is notable that leading macroeconomic models, for example, the Budget Lab at Yale, predict that tariffs of this magnitude would lower growth by only about one percentage point this year. Taking everything into account, Goldman Sachs and other forecasters now expect about 0.5 percent G.D.P. growth this year, which is not a recession. But I suspect that tells us more about the problems with macro models than it does about the lack of severe problems in the world. Summers: The models never came close on the 2008 crisis, and also predict far less impact on companies than the stock and bond markets are now discounting. The Biden administration relied on exactly the models you cite to dismiss inflation fears. Cass: I'm pleased to be in a discussion of economists dismissing the models when they don't produce the answer they expect. Rose: Talking of economists needing to predict the future! What's the Federal Reserve supposed to do now? Typically, the central bank would be a moderating influence if inflation takes off again or growth slows or something breaks in financial markets. But, as they say, is this time different? Furman: Normally, you want the central bank to move quickly and decisively to prevent bad things from happening. But that's impossible now. The higher inflation we're going to get calls for a rate hike, the higher unemployment rate we're going to get calls for a rate cut, and myriad other factors could bounce any which way. So the Fed not only is powerless to stop this, it doesn't even know which direction it should go, and will have to delay deciding — just like businesses and consumers are doing. Patterson: Markets were assuming four quarter-point rate cuts before the end of this year before the pause. Even after, it's still three. There is a risk they will be disappointed as the Fed waits to have more clarity on what the growth and inflation trends are. Summers: The Fed's problem goes back to the fact that this is an iatrogenic financial crisis, our first one, even with the pause. Iatrogenic illness is when you get a serious infection from being in the hospital or from a doctor's treatments. We are now in standard emerging-market territory where a central bank is hamstrung by pressures to both raise and lower rates. There is no good answer. That is why the International Monetary Fund comes into emerging markets, and came into Britain in 1976. Nothing like that is imaginable for the United States. Cass: A somewhat novel challenge is that any higher prices passed on to consumers through tariffs is not inflation in the sense a macroeconomist would worry about, because they are only imposed at the border. If you proposed some other tax, say, to reduce the budget deficit, economists would not call that inflationary. But because they don't like tariffs, it's suddenly fashionable to throw around. Rose: And how about the Fed? Cass: I sympathize with the challenge for the Fed both in dealing with a new economic dynamic and in having so much uncertainty about both the long-run trade policy and the fiscal policy. Are the tariffs going to reduce the budget deficit, thus reducing government borrowing? Are they going to get plowed into bigger tax cuts? Are they going to get spent on industrial policy and work force investment? I'd think those are quite different trajectories and raise different concerns. Furman: I agree with Oren that in normal times the Fed could look through this supply shock because the inflation would be transitory. But context matters, and even before these tariffs started, core inflation was running at about 2.8 percent and inflation expectations were elevated. The risks of inflation getting more embedded is not something the Fed will or can ignore. Rose: Tariffs are front and center right now. But lurching around the corner is the tax bill, which is set to renew the 2017 individual tax cuts, potentially permanently. For now, the Senate version would add roughly $5.7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, while the House plan would cost $2.8 trillion. Various smart people have been worrying about the size of the debt on and off for years. We spend more on interest payments than the military. Is now the time to really worry? Furman: The debt is not an urgent crisis, but we need to start to push it down as a share of the economy, not up, like the House and Senate are both doing. In fact, that congressional debate is closely related to the trade issues we're discussing. When a country runs a larger budget deficit, that leads to a larger trade deficit. So President Trump wants trade policies to bring trade deficits down while pushing budget policies that will go in the opposite direction. Cass: Jason is making an important point here about the relationship between the budget and trade deficits. I think the United States has very fair complaints about policies pursued by other countries that have driven large trade deficits, but we bear responsibility as well for running enormous fiscal deficits that we look to the world to fund. Patterson: I worry that tariff revenue is potentially being counted on as a secure source of funds for tax cuts. How can it be secure if there are deals being made and tariff rates changing, not to mention the revenue being subject to consumption, which is dynamic? I've already voiced my worries about structurally higher borrowing costs. There could be another market shoe to drop if the deficit outlook gets really dark and investors question the reliability of how we got the math to work. Rose: And then there's the money we need to spend to bail out the most politically sensitive tariff victims. Patterson: Right. In Mr. Trump's first term, retaliatory tariffs on American farm goods led the government to provide large subsidies to farmers, which eroded the tariff revenue. It also resulted in buyers, mainly China, moving their business to places such as Brazil. Even when tariffs were rolled back, that didn't change. Can we afford the same subsidies today? How will we protect market share for American businesses? I'd love to see the administration thinking more about this. Rose: With the time we have left, here's a rapid-fire round. First, what are the chances of a recession in the foreseeable future? Summers: Given that policy has adjusted, around two-thirds. Patterson: Assuming most tariffs eventually stay, it would be my base case. Cass: I don't do percentage chances. I think those types of forecasts are among economists' worst habits. Furman: If current tariff rates continue, then 45 percent. Rose: If this kind of policy turmoil continues, what's going to be the first big thing to break: a company, a bank, a merger, the G.O.P., something else? Summers: Who knows? If you drive drunk at 90 miles per hour, you will have an accident. It's hard to say what exactly it will be. Patterson: I am worried about the housing market with higher mortgage rates and potential job losses. And I agree with Larry — we'll probably be surprised. Cass: If I can have two, I think we could see some failures of companies dependent on Chinese inputs, and I worry geopolitically about the effect of what nearly amounts to a China embargo on their calculus on Taiwan. Furman: I hope it is the president's authority to unilaterally set tariffs, broken either by the courts or Congress. Rose: What are you worried you're getting wrong about the economy? Summers: There likely is some consequence of this lurching around that has not yet become salient. When you don't fully understand systems, it's best not to approach them with a sledgehammer, and we don't fully understand how the economy operates. Patterson: Will the tariffs that remain fuel inflation, or will the hit to consumption, oil prices and wages be enough to cap inflation and let the Fed lower rates? Cass: I worry about the time frame. I strongly believe reindustrialization is possible and necessary, but it is going to be hard, and if it takes too long the balance of costs and benefits will begin to feel wrong. Furman: Inflation and unemployment will both go up, but I'm worried about getting the ratio of these two wrong. It's critical right now to know which is the bigger problem.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The Affordable Care Act gave me the freedom to work for myself — now that's under threat
I quit my full-time job as a bank teller to become a full-time freelance journalist on April 20, 2017. I had never done anything so rash before. I was always the person who made reasonable decisions, going from safe job to safe job, trying to slowly build a better life for myself. But after successfully publishing a few scattered bylines in online outlets like Vice, I decided to jump off the career cliff into the great unknown of working for myself. And I couldn't have done it without the Affordable Care Act and its coverage of gender-affirming care. But my access to that essential care is now being quietly threatened by the Trump administration. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services put out a proposed rule that would change a wide range of policies under the ACA — including shortening the open enrollment period by a full month, ending eligibility for ACA plans for DACA recipients and no longer requiring gender-affirming care coverage as an essential health benefit on all ACA individual and small group plans. 'This means that insurance plans would no longer be required to cover treatments related to gender transition, such as hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgeries,' Matthew Rose, senior public policy advocate at the Human Rights Campaign, told me in a statement. 'As a result, many insurers may drop coverage for these services or shift the costs to individuals and states. If a state mandates coverage for gender-affirming care outside of the federal EHB requirements, it would have to pay for the coverage itself. This could make gender-affirming care more expensive or inaccessible for transgender individuals, particularly those with lower incomes.' If this rule, which is open for public comment, gets implemented, I could lose coverage for vital hormone prescriptions and doctor's appointments. I'm not alone in worrying about this. According to available data, trans people are more likely to be uninsured than the average cisgender person, and though numbers are hard to come by, trans people appear much more likely to get insurance from a government-subsidized program like the ACA or Medicaid. HHS estimates that more than 45 million people have ACA plan insurance. If you use the conservative estimate that 0.6% of the population is trans, rough math says that as many as 270,000 people could lose access to the gender-affirming care coverage that they're currently paying for. The rule, if put into place, would go into effect starting next year, depending on the outcome of likely inevitable lawsuits. The proposed rule change has gotten surprisingly little media attention so far, with few outlets reporting on it. The administration's quiet rollout has seemingly worked, as the rule had received only about 5,400 public comments as of Tuesday morning. Nevertheless, a ban of this nature on gender-affirming care would be unprecedented. This type of care has been consistently covered since 2016, including through the entirety of President Donald Trump's first term. And this proposed rule, more so than the passport nonsense outlined in the administration's early executive orders, represents the most alarming government attack on my personal life since Trump took back the White House. Conservatives have a track record of trying to cut funding for things they don't like by claiming 'my tax dollars shouldn't fund that' — think, 'my tax dollars shouldn't fund abortions.' Now they're doing the same thing here, claiming they should have personal veto power over tax dollars spent on trans people they have increasingly villainized in recent years. But the conservative argument doesn't work here, for several reasons. In my case, I don't receive government subsidies for my ACA plan, meaning I pay the entire $500 premium every month myself, with my own money, out of my own pocket. Your tax dollars aren't going toward my health insurance; it's just that the government set up the marketplace I buy my plan on. This is like buying a car and then eight years later having the owner of the car dealership show up on your doorstep to tell you that you can't drive it in Vermont anymore. The second reason this argument doesn't work is that no one else is given such deference in politics. When George W. Bush was in office, I couldn't, as a liberal, stop the government from using my tax dollars to fund wars I opposed. I couldn't stop the government from using my tax dollars to pay for the expansion of the surveillance state. Right now, I can't demand that my tax dollars not enable whatever the heck DOGE is doing. (And all of these examples dwarf the amount of money the U.S. spends on abortions or transition care.) That's not how politics works. And it's weird that we have afforded conservatives special rights to divest taxpayer dollars from whichever policy they find offensive. When I made the jump to working for myself, someone else was able to take my position at the bank, helping to lower the unemployment rate. If my essential health care gets ripped away from the public marketplace, I'll be forced to again compete for a job that someone else probably needs more than I do, simply so I can get the appropriate health care. Regardless of the politics of the moment, we shouldn't be discouraging folks like the 2017 version of myself. I took a leap of faith, backed by a belief in my own abilities and confidence in a government-run insurance marketplace. If you agree, feel free to leave a public comment letting Trump know that this rule shouldn't go through. This article was originally published on
