Latest news with #WhatMatters
Egypt Independent
5 hours ago
- Business
- Egypt Independent
Young people are skeptical of the American Dream
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. CNN — There are some striking divides in a new CNN poll, but they aren't necessarily the partisan kind Americans have come to expect: The divides are more gray than red versus blue. The first has to do with the American Dream, which a growing number of Americans feel is out of reach. Most, 54 percent, still agreed with the idea that 'people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard,' in the new poll, conducted by SSRS. What's noteworthy is that when CNN asked the same question back in 2016, more than two-thirds of respondents, 67 percent, agreed with that optimistic idea. Looking at the new poll's results by age, younger Americans are less bullish that they can 'make it.' About half, 51 percent, of those under 45, felt that 'Hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people,' compared with 41 percent of those 45 and older. There's likely some partisanship behind those numbers, since younger Americans tend to be more liberal, despite the inroads that President Donald Trump and Republicans have made with young people. But the age divide exists, to a more modest extent, even within the Democratic Party. More than two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents under 45 say that hard work and determination are no guarantee of success. A smaller portion, 62 percent of older Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents feel that way. Read the full report by CNN's Ariel Edwards-Levy. A second question in the poll asks whether the government should do more or whether it is trying to do too many things already. A majority, 58 percent, say the government should do more to solve the country's problems, up from just 51 percent when CNN asked the question nearly two years ago. More young people, 63 percent of those under 45, said they want more from the government, compared with 54 percent of those 45 and older. The government arguably does more for older people: It helps to provide health care in the form of Medicare and retirement benefits in the form of Social Security for a large portion of older Americans. At the same time, the ballooning national debt means those programs' future is on an unsustainable path for younger Americans. Asked about which party they feel represents their views on the economy, three-quarters of people over 45 picked either Democrats (32 percent) or Republicans (42 percent), leaving just about a quarter of older Americans who said neither party represented them on the economy. A larger portion of people under 45, 38 percent, said they did not feel represented by either party on the economy. Another CNN story published Monday might help explain some of the malaise felt by younger Americans. This is from CNN's report on the 'No hire, no fire' economy by Matt Egan: … Even as the overall labor market looks relatively healthy, economists say this is the worst market for new college graduates since the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Recent grads are finding that it takes considerable time to get hired, leaving them unemployed and saddled with student debt for a frustratingly long time. For the first time since record-keeping on the topic began in 1980, the unemployment rate for recent graduates (those 22 to 27 years old with a bachelor's degree or higher) is consistently higher than the national unemployment rate, according to Oxford Economics. The unemployment rate for people between 20 and 24 is twice the national average, and there is evidence that companies are adjusting how they make entry-level hires as they adopt AI advancements. All of that could point to a distinct lack of optimism among younger Americans.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Young people are skeptical of the American Dream
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. There are some striking divides in a new CNN poll, but they aren't necessarily the partisan kind Americans have come to expect: The divides are more gray than red versus blue. The first has to do with the American Dream, which a growing number of Americans feel is out of reach. Most, 54%, still agreed with the idea that 'people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard,' in the new poll, conducted by SSRS. What's noteworthy is that when CNN asked the same question back in 2016, more than two-thirds of respondents, 67%, agreed with that optimistic idea. Looking at the new poll's results by age, younger Americans are less bullish that they can 'make it.' About half, 51%, of those under 45, felt that 'Hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people,' compared with 41% of those 45 and older. There's likely some partisanship behind those numbers, since younger Americans tend to be more liberal, despite the inroads that President Donald Trump and Republicans have made with young people. But the age divide exists, to a more modest extent, even within the Democratic Party. More than two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents under 45 say that hard work and determination are no guarantee of success. A smaller portion, 62% of older Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents feel that way. Read the full report by CNN's Ariel Edwards-Levy. A second question in the poll asks whether the government should do more or whether it is trying to do too many things already. A majority, 58%, say the government should do more to solve the country's problems, up from just 51% when CNN asked the question nearly two years ago. More young people, 63% of those under 45, said they want more from the government, compared with 54% of those 45 and older. The government arguably does more for older people: It helps to provide health care in the form of Medicare and retirement benefits in the form of Social Security for a large portion of older Americans. At the same time, the ballooning national debt means those programs' future is on an unsustainable path for younger Americans. Asked about which party they feel represents their views on the economy, three-quarters of people over 45 picked either Democrats (32%) or Republicans (42%), leaving just about a quarter of older Americans who said neither party represented them on the economy. A larger portion of people under 45, 38%, said they did not feel represented by either party on the economy. Another CNN story published Monday might help explain some of the malaise felt by younger Americans. This is from CNN's report on the 'No hire, no fire' economy by Matt Egan: … Even as the overall labor market looks relatively healthy, economists say this is the worst market for new college graduates since the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Recent grads are finding that it takes considerable time to get hired, leaving them unemployed and saddled with student debt for a frustratingly long time. For the first time since record-keeping on the topic began in 1980, the unemployment rate for recent graduates (those 22 to 27 years old with a bachelor's degree or higher) is consistently higher than the national unemployment rate, according to Oxford Economics. The unemployment rate for people between 20 and 24 is twice the national average, and there is evidence that companies are adjusting how they make entry-level hires as they adopt AI advancements. All of that could point to a distinct lack of optimism among younger Americans.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Mount Rushmore of things people want to name after Trump
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. Sadly for President Donald Trump's most ardent fans, there's probably no room left on Mount Rushmore. There's also a law on the books since 1866 that forbids placing the likeness of a living person on US currency. But those obstacles have not stopped members of Congress from introducing legislation to honor their leader larger-than-life in stone and on legal tender. There are proposals to place Trump on the $100 bill, perhaps replacing Benjamin Franklin, or on an as-yet unprinted $250 bill. None of these ideas seem likely to become law, but they are emblematic of a trend of similar efforts to flatter the president. Another idea formalized in an official legislative proposal would withhold funds from the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority, WMATA, until it is renamed 'WMAGA.' DC's Metrorail commuter train, better known as the Metro, would be renamed the 'Trump Train.' Sometimes, just saying MAGA doesn't go far enough. While nobody should expect to get on the Trump Train near the White House any time soon, there's a real possibility every new baby could get a Trump Account. An early draft of the megabill on Capitol Hill riffed on Democratic proposals to give each American baby some seed money at birth. At first, the plan was to call this money 'MAGA Accounts.' The name was changed to 'Trump Accounts' in the version that passed the House. We'll see if the idea makes it through the Senate. The president will also receive a big birthday bash at taxpayer expense. There will be a spectacular display of US military might to honor the US Army's 250th birthday and Flag Day, which happen to coincide with Trump's birthday on June 14. 'I view it for Flag Day, not necessarily my birthday,' Trump told NBC News in a recent interview. 'Somebody put it together.' Another proposal in Congress would make Trump's birthday (and Flag Day) a national holiday. There may also be a fighter jet whose name nods at Trump's presidency. 'It'll be known as the F-47. The generals picked a title. And it's a beautiful number. F-47,' Trump said during an appearance in the Oval Office announcing the new contract for Boeing to build a sixth-generation fighter. Trump, in his second term, is the 47th president. And before you ask, no, the F-14 Tomcat did not memorialize 14th US President Franklin Pierce any more than the F-16 Fighting Falcon memorialized Abraham Lincoln. There is at least a conversation in conservative media outlets about placing Trump on Mount Rushmore, the South Dakota rock face that honors George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Lincoln. 'A lot of people wonder: Will we ever see President Trump's face on Mount Rushmore? What do you think?' Trump's daughter-in-law, the Fox News host and former RNC official Lara Trump, asked Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. 'Well, they certainly have room for it there,' Burgum said, despite evidence to the contrary. The National Park Service has worked with an engineering firm in past decades to explore the structural integrity of the rock face, and there is no more carvable space, a spokesperson told the Argus Leader in 2020. And the monument is a completed work of art by the sculptor Gutzon Borglum. During Trump's first term, then-South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem gave him a $1,100 bust of Mount Rushmore featuring his face, knowing he'd appreciate the gesture. She's now his homeland security secretary. Trump's eponymous company is pursuing golf, hotel and residential projects in far-flung locations – the Middle East, Indonesia and India. And the company that runs his social media platform bears his initials as its stock ticker. One place that features the faces of living people on its currency is the United Kingdom, which honors its king in that way. But Trump already does have a currency of sorts – a memecoin, which has made a few people a lot of money, including Trump. He celebrated its top investors in a controversial 'personal time' event at his Trump-branded golf course earlier this month. Another proposal on Capitol Hill would rename Dulles Airport for Trump, which would give the DC region its second airport named for a Republican. It was President Bill Clinton who signed the bipartisan legislation giving Ronald Reagan's name to Washington National Airport in 1998. The move was controversial, but ultimately bipartisan. From CNN's report at the time: The Reagan Legacy Project of the Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group, launched the airport campaign last year as part of a wider effort to put his name on buildings and his face on Mount Rushmore… Some Democrats offered to name practically anything else for Reagan except that airport, suggesting the Pentagon or Dulles International Airport. Others suggested Reagan had been honored enough with a new office building and a new Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, both of which carry his name. It can take a long, coordinated campaign to get something like an airport named for someone. Reagan was still alive at the time, but suffering from Alzheimer's, and a full 10 years out of office. Will there still be energy to name things for Trump 10 years from now?
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How the government makes a $3.8 trillion educated guess
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. Rather than justify sticker shock at the trillions of dollars President Donald Trump's tax bill would add to deficits and the national debt, some Republican lawmakers and conservative economists are trying out some mind tricks. This isn't REALLY $3.8 trillion in deficit spending. 'Dramatically overestimated,' House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN's Jake Tapper on 'State of the Union' Sunday, days after the proposal squeaked through the House. Johnson hopes budget-conscious senators don't tinker with the legislation too much. Any changes will lead to new projections. 'A Ouija board could turn out more accurate prognostications,' wrote Stephen Moore, a Trump ally at the Heritage Foundation, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal: 'Save us from the CBO.' He was talking about the budget scoring process, which involves both the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. These types of complaints about CBO and JCT appear whenever there is a big bill likely to add to the national debt. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has long criticized the CBO. He called for it to be abolished back in 2019, arguing in a Fox News op-ed that its math does not appropriately assume tax cuts will spur economic growth. 'The CBO consistently underestimates the positive impact from supply-side, market-oriented reforms while giving Keynesian, big government policies the benefit of the doubt,' Gingrich wrote. The CBO, however, is definitely nonpartisan. Both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have a say in who leads the organization. The CBO has also evolved its calculations in recent years to account for economic activity, something known as 'dynamic scoring.' Importantly, there are plenty of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who agree to accept CBO's scores. The fiscal hawk Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, told Tapper he opposes the House bill because it adds so much deficit spending. 'You have these independent analysts saying it's $3.3 trillion to $4 trillion. I agree with that,' Johnson said. 'We have to reduce the deficit. And so we need to focus on spending, spending, spending.' Complaining about the CBO and its scoring may be part of the political argument. If you don't like the numbers, attack the numbers. But it's interesting to consider how CBO runs the numbers to predict how a trillion-dollar tax cut might affect the deficit. I went to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director who also worked on the Council of Economic Advisers during both Bush presidencies. Today he's president of the American Action Forum, an independent organization that classifies itself as center-right on economic policy. Our conversation, conducted by phone and edited for length, is below. Holtz-Eakin: CBO's primary job is to score pieces of legislation. Scoring is calculating the change in the amount of money flowing into the Treasury, the amount of money flowing out of the Treasury in response to a piece of legislation. The Joint Committee on Taxation does the tax piece of it. CBO does the rest. They both operate the same way to do that. To do that — and this is sort of nerdy, but very important — the first thing CBO does — and the Joint Committee shares it — is CBO calculates a projection for the economy in January, and then layers on top of that the current tax and spending laws to show what would happen to the federal budget if left on autopilot. And that's known as the baseline. Then it starts scoring various bills by looking at how they would change the money coming in and going out versus that baseline. It's important they use the same baseline for all the scores so that you can compare them. Importantly, CBO is still scoring against the outlook for the economy they saw when they put out the January baseline. Nobody thinks the economy looks the same now as it did in January. If you were just interested in predicting the right number, then you would update your jumping-off point. But CBO doesn't get to do that. They have to provide Congress with consistent scores, and they will do that throughout the year, regardless of what happens to the economy. It's trying to give Congress good information about the decisions it's making. Holtz-Eakin: It is nonpartisan by law and, more importantly, by DNA. I was the first, and to this day, the only CBO director to come directly from the White House, which most people think was a fairly partisan organization. Many Democrats were extraordinarily skeptical of my ability to lead CBO in a nonpartisan fashion, and I was able to do so successfully because the organization is nonpartisan. I just had to give a good direction and it took care of itself. People don't like CBO because they don't get the answer they want, and they blame it on partisan grounds, but that's not what's going on. They're just disappointed. The other thing that's worth mentioning here, because it's really, really wrong, and (Moore) has said it now for 20 years: CBO regularly updates its models. It is not using the same models it used back in 1978. It builds its estimates off the consensus of the research literature. There's a lot of economic research every year. A lot of empirical evidence gives you guidance on tax and spending programs, on environmental programs, health programs, all of that. CBO is a regular participant in research conferences. It is using the latest estimates from the literature. So the models aren't the same, because the research keeps progressing. Holtz-Eakin: The difference between a dynamic score and a traditional score is that in a dynamic score, you allow the size of the economy to change. And for some policies, that's appropriate, like certainly the 2017 (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) … a whole point was to make the economy grow better, so the size of the economy would change from the baseline. CBO regularly incorporates behavioral responses to tax incentives. If you put a draconian tax on stock buybacks, you're going to see changes in firms' financial behavior. CBO will capture that. In (the case of this bill), if you don't tax tips, you're going to see more tipped income. It might not be dramatic, but they'll take all those things into account. Holtz-Eakin: CBO usually gets it wrong because of two things. You can't predict the future, and the economy is always different than one would have been able to forecast. They can't change their forecast every month, so the jumping-off points are often not what they would prefer. There's going to be changes in the environment around them. And more importantly, administrations do executive actions, Congress passes laws — they change everything in the budget around CBO, and they turn out to be off. The right question is, had those things not changed, how close would they have been? And that's a much harder question to answer. You'd have to rerun history with a counterfactual where the executive didn't take actions, Congress sat on its hands, and the economy progressed as we thought. Then you'd have a real answer. Holtz-Eakin: The roots of the CBO are in a fight between then-President Richard Nixon and the Congress on Nixon impounding funds. There was a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court. But Congress came to the realization that they could not rely on the budgetary information that was solely available from the Bureau of the Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget, the executive branch. Congress wanted their own. So with the 1974 Budget Act, they created the Congressional Budget Office and also the entire apparatus for budgeting — House Budget Committee, Senate Budget Committee, budget resolutions — all of that came out of the '74 act. CBO's role in that was twofold. To do the scoring that I described, and To do special studies, as Congress asked them to, on particular topics that they might have future legislation on. You see a lot of CBO studies at the request of members of Congress, but their bread and butter is using what they've learned from those studies to do the scoring. Holtz-Eakin: It's important in two ways. There's going to be more, not less, debt. They're unquestionably right about that. The magnitude. It's single digits, below $5 trillion. It's not double digits. It's not triple digits, God forbid. You get the magnitude of the legislation. This is measured in the trillions. That's important. It's big and relative to already having $37 trillion in debt, it's going to be something that looks like 10% more over 10 years. That's the ballpark. Holtz-Eakin: I think CBO still could write more clearly about the key parts of important scores. When I was director, we did a score of the Medicare Modernization Act, which created the Part D program. I had them write up the score as a separate CBO study — a complete, finished book, almost: How did we do it? How did we think about it? What judgments had to be made? Models inform that judgment. Models can be very useful. But when you're doing something that involves judgment, you should explain how you made your judgments, and they're often not clear enough about that.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Republicans tweak the social contract to ask more of states
Editor's Note: A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. An emerging reality of President Donald Trump's second term is that the federal government will be doing less and states will need to do a lot more on everything from disaster relief to health insurance. The White House and Republicans in Congress are effectively trying to shift financial responsibility on multiple fronts away from Washington, DC, in what could amount to a rewriting of the American social contract. In the 'big, beautiful bill,' which House Republicans are tweaking before a likely vote this week, individual tax cuts from Trump's first term are made permanent and paid for by adding trillions to the national debt, according to estimates, and requiring states to spend more on the safety net of welfare programs that feed and provide health insurance to the poorest Americans. Trump traveled to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to pressure wavering House Republicans to support the bill. Even if GOP representatives can pass their House bill, they will need to work with senators on a version that can clear both chambers, meaning that much of what's below could change. CNN's Tami Luhby has a much more detailed look at the House Republicans' bill. States, for the first time, would have to pay for a portion of food stamp benefits, which are now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. States and the federal government have long shared the cost of administering the program, but under the GOP proposal, states would go from paying nothing for SNAP benefits to being required to pay between 5% and 25%, as well as a larger portion of administrative costs. A state whose residents had gotten $1 billion in benefits would have to find close to $100 million to maintain those current benefits if it suddenly needed to match 10%. But if the state did not provide the full $100 million, according to an assessment by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities of the 2018 proposal on which this part of the current bill is based, the federal matching funds might also drop since the federal government would be prohibited from paying part of the state's percentage. A state that paid $75 million instead of $100 million could actually see its SNAP benefits drop by $250 million. Changes like this would likely result in a reduction in the number of people – currently more than 40 million, or close to 13% of the US population – who are able to get SNAP. Generally, people are only eligible for food assistance if they make less than $33,576 per year for a family of three. Enrollment in the program, and its cost, spiked during the pandemic. In exchange for the cuts, the federal government could save nearly $300 billion over 10 years. Supporters argue that making states pay more for the program will incentivize states to control costs. Medicaid is the program by which states and the federal government split the cost of providing health insurance to about 71 million Americans who live at or just above the federal poverty level. Republicans are still haggling over the specifics of their plan, and some lawmakers in the Senate have said they would oppose any cuts. On Capitol Hill, after giving Republicans a 'pep talk' behind closed doors, Trump talked to reporters and denied any of these cost savings are cuts. 'We're not touching anything. All I want is one thing. Three words. We don't want any waste, fraud, or abuse,' Trump said. One major expected change is that for the first time there will be work requirements for Medicaid. There is some question over whether those requirements would kick in starting in 2027 or 2029 as Republicans work to finalize the bill. Regardless, the bill achieves cost savings by assuming fewer Americans would have health insurance. A preliminary assessment of an early version of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office suggests Medicaid would cover millions fewer people by 2034. That figure would rise if work requirements are imposed in 2027. Medicaid spending has eaten up an increasingly large portion of state budgets, rising from about 22% in 2010 when the Affordable Care Act was passed to nearly 30% in 2024, a figure that includes federal matching funds. Without the federal funds, states spend 19% of their budgets on Medicaid. The Affordable Care Act expanded coverage to people making up to 138% of the federal poverty level – $35,997.50 for a family of three in 2025 – and the federal government footed most of the bill. Forty states and Washington, DC, have now expanded coverage. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a Democrat, told CNN's Pamela Brown last week that states would not be able to backfill cuts in Medicaid spending. 'The state can't supplant the federal dollars. That's the problem here,' Whitmer said, predicting 'pain in all 50 states, to Americans all across this country, if Congress goes forward with this.' The federal government uses a complicated formula to determine how much of a state's Medicaid costs it will cover, and it picks up a larger percentage in states with lower average incomes. Proposals by fiscal hawks to change that formula and lower the federal government's contribution have so far been rejected. The entire Medicaid program cost more than $880 billion in 2023 and the federal government paid more than $606 billion of that, according to KFF. The current House proposal would also reduce federal funding to the 14 states that have used their own state funds to cover undocumented children. A handful of states, notably California, have experimented with opening their Medicaid system even to some undocumented adults, but paying for that coverage entirely with state funds. It has been an expensive effort. California Gov. Gavin Newsom indicated he will dial back on that program as he faces a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall paired with the threat of losing federal money for Medicaid. The state released an analysis of an early version of Republicans' bill that projected 3.4 million Californians would lose coverage. California separately provides some subsistence aid to undocumented people who don't qualify for federal SSI benefits, but the Trump administration has threatened that program by launching a federal investigation. The effort to shift burdens away from the federal government extends well beyond the tax bill. Trump's administration has begun denying disaster relief to states and the administration is working to shrink FEMA's imprint, CNN has reported, which in the short term means the disaster relief agency is 'not ready for hurricane season,' according to an internal memo. The longer-term effect of the changes would put more of a focus on state governments. That follows a March executive order in which the president called for states to be 'empowered' to do more to prepare for 'cyber attacks, wildfires, hurricanes, and space weather.' Trump's plan for the Department of Education has been sold as a way to give states more power over education, but it would also significantly cut the amount of federal dollars going to schools. His budget proposal cuts $12 billion from the department. At the same time, the administration has used federal dollars to pressure states to end diversity programs and guarantee that the undocumented are not accessing taxpayer-funded benefits. Luhby noted that the tax and policy bill on Capitol Hill would also reduce federal spending on student loans by $350 billion. It would pare back on federally subsidized loans and cap the amount of federal aid a student can receive at the 'median cost of college.' It would also end economic hardship and unemployment deferments. That's not directly asking states to do more, but it will have a knock-on effect in states if fewer Americans can afford to go to college.
