logo
Commentary: What Trump should be doing instead of attacking the Fed

Commentary: What Trump should be doing instead of attacking the Fed

Yahoo4 days ago
Republicans have a problem. Their signature economic package for 2025, the tax bill President Trump signed into law in early July, is deeply unpopular. Voters think it will harm the poor and reward the wealthy, and sober analysis suggests they're right. The last time Republicans passed a law like this, in 2017, voters pummeled them in the subsequent election.
As the leader of his party, President Trump bears responsibility for selling the tax bill to voters. He's not doing that. Instead, his main economic messaging effort this summer has been a sustained attack on the Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell.
Trump has routinely suggested he'll try to fire Powell, perhaps hoping the Fed chair will crack under pressure and quit before his term expires next May. He has hurled a dictionary of insults at Powell, calling him 'dumb,' 'stupid,' 'major loser,' 'knucklehead,' 'numbskull,' 'Mr. Too Late,' and 'the worst Federal Reserve chairman in history.' Since Powell has shown no signs of quitting, Trump has suggested he'll announce a "shadow" Fed chair who will offer different monetary policy guidance until Powell's term finally ends.
Trump's war on Powell serves at least three purposes. His stated reason for browbeating the Fed is to compel sharp interest rate cuts to stimulate the economy. But Trump also has a penchant for creating villains he can blame when something goes wrong, and as head of a cautious central bank, Powell fits the profile.
Trump also manages his many controversies by creating new kerfuffles to distract people from existing ones. Threatening mayhem at the Fed has been a way for Trump to deflect attention from tariff-related inflation, slowing economic growth, and now, the mushrooming Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
The Fed is not really causing Trump any problems. It has kept interest rates steady since last December, one source of calm in financial markets otherwise roiled by Trump's tariffs and their many unintended consequences. The Fed most likely will end up cutting rates by later this year or early next, just not as dramatically as Trump wants.
Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates?
Tax bill blowback should be a more pressing concern for Trump. As analysts figure out what's actually in the megabill, the political peril for Republicans becomes increasingly apparent. Most voters don't know all the details, but they already dislike the tax law and could oppose it even more strongly once it begins to affect real people.
A recent CNN poll found that 61% of people oppose the bill while only 39% approve. Fifty-eight percent say Trump has gone too far in cutting federal programs, which most likely reflects the blunt-force DOGE cuts overseen by Elon Musk earlier this year. And in the CNN poll, approval for Trump's handling of the federal budget was a lowly 37%.In an Associated Press poll, 62% of respondents said the tax bill would help the wealthy, while just 20% felt it would help low-income people. The portion saying it would harm 'people like me' was twice the portion saying it would help. Trump's approval rating on handling the economy in that poll was a scant 38%, with 60% disapproving. Trump is now deeply underwater on what used to be one of his most winning issues.
Voters are correctly assessing the complicated bill. The Yale Budget Lab found that the bottom 40% of earners would actually suffer a net loss of income from the bill, mainly because of cutbacks in food aid, Medicaid, and other health subsidies. The top 20% of earners would gain about $6,500 in annual after-tax income, while the savings for the top 1% would be $30,000. That's highly regressive, in that it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.
Healthcare cuts are likely to be a particularly controversial aspect of the legislation, which could increase the number of uninsured Americans by 11 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Other GOP policies could boost that number to 16 million within 10 years, and real people will start to feel the cutbacks in 2026.
Republicans have essentially given voters every plausible reason to blame them for increasing healthcare costs, lost coverage, and medical disasters. Democrats will be eager to help heap it on. They're already erecting billboards near closing rural hospitals blaming Trump for the shutdowns. Whether such claims are accurate or not, Republicans put the target on their own backs.
When Republicans passed a big tax-cut law in 2017, during Trump's first term, they thought voters would reward them for a bill that financially benefited a majority of Americans. It didn't work out that way. The law was unpopular from the start, with many Americans feeling it heavily favored businesses and the wealthy. While that law harmed few people, many felt it did nothing to help them. In the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats outperformed, gaining 40 seats in the House of Representatives and retaking control of the chamber.
The 2025 tax cut law is more punishing than the 2017 vintage, because of the cuts to food aid and healthcare. And Republicans have a far narrower edge in the House this time around. If the pattern holds, Republicans will take a beating in next year's midterms, losing the House and maybe the Senate.
If Trump has a plan to prevent that, he might want to reveal what it is. The Fed will probably be cutting interest rates by the time of next year's election, blunting Trump's vilification of the central bank. He'll need somebody else to blame for everything voters dislike, unless he finds a way to persuade them that things are better than they think.
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.
Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Mayor Evelyn George will not run for re-election
Mayor Evelyn George will not run for re-election

Yahoo

time6 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Mayor Evelyn George will not run for re-election

Jul. 27—Newton Mayor Evelyn George announced this week she will not be seeking another term, putting an end to her long tenure in city government. George was elected mayor in November 2023. The tight race was determined by just 13 votes, with George earning 911 votes and council member Randy Ervin earning 898 votes. Lonnie Appleby, who launched his second campaign for mayor after running as a write-in candidate in 2021, received 798 votes. Prior to her run for mayor, George served the Ward 2 seat on the Newton City Council from 2013 until 2017, and then the at-large seat from 2017 until 2023. At the conclusion of the July 21 city council meeting, George said she and her husband have been married 43 years and counting. She suggested she is not running for re-election this coming November in order to focus more of her time family while they are still healthy to do so. "As we were planning our family vacation to Smoky Mountains, we're like, 'There are so many other places we want to visit and see,'" George said. "And while we're still healthy and able to do that, we've decided that's going to be a priority. So, I will not be running for office this fall." George said the most important characteristics for anyone wanting to serve as mayor are: open-mindedness, a positive attitude and a willingness to listen to people, especially those that aren't of the same background. She also said it helps to be someone who strives to be a lifelong learner. "If someone comes in thinking they have all the answers and they know it, they'll soon find out that city government is quite different than anything else," she said. Solve the daily Crossword

US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers
US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers

Yahoo

time6 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. The tariffs, or import taxes, paid when Americans buy European products could raise prices for U.S. consumers and dent profits for European companies and their partners who bring goods into the country. Here are some things to know about the trade deal between the United States and the European Union: What's in the agreement? Trump and von der Leyen's announcement, made during Trump's visit to one of his golf courses in Scotland, leaves many details to be filled in. The headline figure is a 15% tariff rate on 'the vast majority' of European goods brought into the U.S., including cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. It's lower than the 20% Trump initially proposed, and lower than his threats of 50% and then 30%. Von der Leyen said the two sides agreed on zero tariffs on both sides for a range of 'strategic' goods: Aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, and some natural resources and critical raw materials. Specifics were lacking. She said the two sides 'would keep working' to add more products to the list. Additionally, the EU side would purchase what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel to replace Russian energy supplies, and Europeans would invest an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) in the U.S. What's not in the deal? Trump said the 50% U.S. tariff on imported steel would remain; von der Leyen said the two sides agreed to further negotiations to fight a global steel glut, reduce tariffs and establish import quotas — that is, set amounts that can be imported, often at a lower rate. Trump said pharmaceuticals were not included in the deal. Von der Leyen said the pharmaceuticals issue was 'on a separate sheet of paper' from Sunday's deal. Where the $600 billion for additional investment would come from was not specified. And von der Leyen said that when it came to farm products, the EU side made clear that 'there were tariffs that could not be lowered,' without specifying which products. What's the impact? The 15% rate removes Trump's threat of a 30% tariff. It's still much higher than the average tariff before Trump came into office of around 1%, and higher than Trump's minimum 10% baseline tariff. Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods mean sellers in the U.S. would have to either increase prices for consumers — risking loss of market share — or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits. The higher tariffs are expected to hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy. The 10% baseline applied while the deal was negotiated was already sufficiently high to make the European Union's executive commission cut its growth forecast for this year from 1.3% to 0.9%. Von der Leyen said the 15% rate was 'the best we could do' and credited the deal with maintaining access to the U.S. market and providing 'stability and predictability for companies on both sides.' What is some of the reaction to the deal? German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal which avoided 'an unnecessary escalation in transatlantic trade relations" and said that 'we were able to preserve our core interests,' while adding that 'I would have very much wished for further relief in transatlantic trade.' The Federation of German Industries was blunter. "Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry," said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. While the rate is lower than threatened, "the big caveat to today's deal is that there is nothing on paper, yet," said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro at ING bank. 'With this disclaimer in mind and at face value, today's agreement would clearly bring an end to the uncertainty of recent months. An escalation of the US-EU trade tensions would have been a severe risk for the global economy," Brzeski said. 'This risk seems to have been avoided.' What about car companies? Asked if European carmakers could still sell cars at 15%, von der Leyen said the rate was much lower than the current 27.5%. That has been the rate under Trump's 25% tariff on cars from all countries, plus the preexisting U.S. car tariff of 2.5%. The impact is likely to be substantial on some companies, given that automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3 billion euro ($1.5 billion) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. What were the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with some 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in annual trade. Together the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products, according to the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more from European businesses than the other way around, and has said the European market is not open enough for U.S.-made cars. However, American companies fill some of the trade gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. And some 30% of European imports are from American-owned companies, according to the European Central Bank. 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

Donald Trump Repeats False Claim Beyoncé Was Paid $11 Million To Endorse Kamala Harris; Calls To Prosecute Singer, Oprah & Al Sharpton
Donald Trump Repeats False Claim Beyoncé Was Paid $11 Million To Endorse Kamala Harris; Calls To Prosecute Singer, Oprah & Al Sharpton

Yahoo

time6 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Donald Trump Repeats False Claim Beyoncé Was Paid $11 Million To Endorse Kamala Harris; Calls To Prosecute Singer, Oprah & Al Sharpton

On Saturday, Donald Trump repeated false claims that Beyoncé was paid $11 million to endorse Kamala Harris on the campaign trail in October of last year. The Truth Social post comes as the president faces scrutiny from his own base over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Taking to his social media platform yesterday, the GOP leader wrote, 'I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats, after the Presidential Election, and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note, and left the stage to a booing and angry audience!), Three Million Dollars for 'expenses,' to Oprah, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars to very low rated TV 'anchor,' Al Sharpton (a total lightweight!), and others to be named for doing, absolutely NOTHING! These ridiculous fees were incorrectly stated in the books and records. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out! Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter.' More from Deadline Beyoncé Reunites Destiny's Child For Final 'Cowboy Carter' Tour Stop In Vegas Stephen Colbert Praises 'South Park's Naked AI Trump PSA: "An Important Message Of Hope" Donald Trump Denies Being Briefed That His Name Appeared In Jeffrey Epstein Files, Despite Wall Street Journal Report That He Was Informed Trump is referring to the 35-time Grammy-winning artist's appearance at a rally in Houston, where the singer took to the stage to endorse the vice president and call for unity. 'It's time to sing a new song, a song that began 248 years ago. The old notes of downfall, discord, despair no longer resonate. Our generations of loved ones before us are whispering a prophecy, a quest, a calling, an anthem. Our moment right now — it's time for America to sing a new song. Our voices sing a chorus of unity. They sing a song of dignity and opportunity,' she said to the crowd. Federal campaign spending records show a $165,000 payment made from the Democratic presidential candidate's organization to Beyoncé's production company, per CNN, with 'campaign event production' listed as the reasoning for the expenditure. Last year, senior spokesperson for the Harris campaign Adrienne Elrod told Deadline that the campaign did not pay any celebrity endorsers but was required by campaign finance law to cover costs associated with holding such events, per Federal Election Commission rules. This accounts for the $1 million the Harris campaign spent on Oprah's Harpo Productions, as the famed TV personality endorsed her at a Michigan-held 'Unite for America' event in September 2024. The baseless allegation was fact-checked by websites and PolitiFact last year, though Trump repeated his sentiments about Beyoncé, Oprah and Al Sharpton back in February. Trump has also previously harped on the matter in a post made back in May, where he named other influential Harris endorsers like Bruce Springsteen and Bono, calling for a 'major investigation.' There's also no evidence to suggest such expenses were incorrectly categorized, and though Trump maintained payment for endorsement is illegal, there's actually no FEC law that prohibits such campaigns for paying for endorsements, though they must disclose such expenditures. Best of Deadline Celebs Supporting Zohran Mamdani In New York's Mayoral Race: From Ramy Youssef To Cynthia Nixon The Fox News To White House Pipeline: TV Personalities Who Joined The Trump Administration Celebrities Voting And Encouraging Voting In The 2024 Election

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store