Raise the debt ceiling by $24 trillion — or kill the bill
Should Congress enact the budget reconciliation bill recently passed by the House (formally titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act), the tax and spending policies set in motion over the next decade would require roughly $24 trillion in cumulative borrowing, pushing debt as a share of gross domestic product to about 124 percent. Yet Congress appears on track to raise the debt ceiling by only $4 trillion or perhaps $5 trillion or, if Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has his way, $500 billion. What this means is that the Republican-controlled Congress is deliberately choosing a future for the country in which tax revenue falls well short of federal spending year after year — but in which the treasury is prohibited from making up the difference by borrowing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
President Donald Trump endorses Mike Rogers in Michigan U.S. Senate race
President Donald Trump endorsed former congressman Mike Rogers July 24 in his Republican bid for an open U.S. Senate seat. Trump announced the endorsement on his Truth Social media platform in a move that strengthened already strong expectations that Rogers, who lost narrowly to U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin in 2024, will again be the Republican nominee in 2026, this time for a seat being vacated by U.S. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township. 'I'm grateful to have President Trump's complete and total endorsement," Rogers said in a news release. 'He knows that we have what it takes to win this seat and deliver real results for hard-working families." On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, announced on X that he would not run for the U.S. Senate, after discussions with his family and "in consultation with President Trump." That announcement largely cleared the field of major potential challengers to Rogers. Huizenga did not say whether he would seek a ninth term in Congress, where he represents the 4th Congressional District and where Republicans hold a slim majority in the U.S. House going into the midterm elections. Rogers, a former FBI agent from Livingston County, served seven terms in Congress and became chair of the House Intelligence Committee before stepping down in 2015 to become a radio talk show host. Rogers also had Trump's endorsement in the 2024 U.S. Senate race. Republicans and Democrats will choose their respective U.S. Senate candidates in a primary election next year. Peters announced in January that he wouldn't seek a third six-year term, setting the stage for Michigan's second open seat U.S. Senate election in two years. A competitive race is developing on the Democratic side, where announced candidates include U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Birmingham; state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak; former state House Speaker Rep. Joe Tate, D-Detroit; and Dr. Abdul El-Sayed of Ann Arbor, a former Wayne County health director who sought the Democratic nomination for governor in 2018. Republicans have not won a U.S. Senate election in Michigan since former U.S. Sen. Spencer Abraham won a single term in 1994. Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: President Trump endorses Mike Rogers in Michigan U.S. Senate race
San Francisco Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump just floated a tax idea that would hugely benefit California homeowners
President Donald Trump just floated an idea that could benefit more homeowners in California than in any other state: eliminating the capital gains tax on the sale of a primary home. Under current law, homeowners who sell their primary home pay nothing on their first $250,000 (single filers) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) in profits. Anything over that is taxed as a capital gain. Those limits have not changed since the law that created them took effect in May 1997. Had they increased along with the Consumer Price Index, they would be double that now. California has, by far, more homes exceeding the current limits than any other state. Between 2017 and 2023, California accounted for 37% of all sales nationwide that had gross capital gains exceeding $500,000, even though it made up only 10% of all home sales, according to a study last year by Cotality. Rather than sell and pay capital gains tax – which could be as much as 33% in federal and California taxes combined – many long-term homeowners plan to stay put until they die, even if their home no longer suits them. Upon their death, all of the appreciation that occurred during their lifetime will be tax-free, thanks to a tax benefit known as the 'step-up in basis." Real estate agents say this 'lock-in' effect is slowing home sales and driving up prices in high-cost markets. 'We have had the most appreciation in the nation coupled with the highest capital gains rate in the nation when you count state and federal,' said Silicon Valley Realtor Ken DeLeon. 'I have a client, he has Alzheimer's, he should really be in a care home, but he has a highly appreciated home and he's choosing not to sell.' He noted that In Santa Clara County, single-family home sales fell fairly steadily from 24,174 in 2001 to 10,102 in 2024. In San Mateo County, they fell from 8,878 to 4,471, DeLeon said. About two weeks ago, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., introduced a bill, the No Tax on Home Sales Act, that would eliminate capital gains taxes on primary home sales. During a press conference Tuesday, Trump was asked, 'How important is it we have no tax on home sales, capital gains to unleash the housing market in this country?' His response: 'Well, we're thinking about that. But it would also unleash it just by lowering the interest rates.' Congress would have to approve any change or elimination of the capital gains tax on homes. If it did, the California Legislature would have to decide whether or not to conform to the new federal law for state taxes. Most federal legislators from California contacted for this article – including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff and Rep. Nancy Pelosi – did not respond or declined to comment on Trump's idea until he puts forth a proposal. But a couple did acknowledge the need for change. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, said via email that there are areas of the state and nation where rising property values 'are making the capital gains tax a barrier for many empty nesters and retirees seeking to sell their homes or downsize. This has worsened California's housing crisis, leaving too many houses off the market … As Ranking Member of the (House) Tax Subcommittee, I support solutions that would address these issues, including raising the current exemption for the capital gains tax." Considering how many tax breaks Congress just granted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it's not clear how much support there is for legislation that would mainly benefit wealthy homeowners. Double the exemption? A more modest bill, the ' More Homes on the Market Act,' would double the existing exemptions to $500,000 for singles and $1 million for couples and index them to inflation. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Santa Cruz, reintroduced the bill in February after it died in 2023, despite having broad bipartisan support. In an emailed statement, Panetta said, 'It's a good thing that the President is finally acknowledging the seriousness of the affordable housing issue…' and that he is 'willing to work with anyone on solutions for my constituents…especially when it comes to our bipartisan bill.' Asked whether he favors eliminating the capital gains tax on homes, his office said Panetta would first have to review any such legislation and the analysis. Doubling the exemption would wipe out the tax for most homeowners, but 'in the Bay Area and California, you would need to quadruple it, to $2 million,' DeLeon said. Since May 1997, the median price of a single-family home nationwide has risen by almost 250% to $441,500, according to National Association of Realtors data. But in California, it shot up 386% to almost $900,000, and in San Francisco County, it soared about 500% to $1.75 million, based on California Association of Realtors data. The old rules Freeing up inventory was also one of the main reasons behind the tax law change in 1997. Under the old law, when sellers made a profit on their primary residence, the tax was deferred (not forgiven) if they purchased a replacement home within a specified time and the new house cost at least as much as the sales price on the old home. A homeowner could continue rolling the untaxed profit from one house to another, as long as they kept buying more expensive homes. If and when they sold a home, all of the accumulated untaxed gains would become taxable. If they left it to their heirs, the gains up until the owner's death generally would escape capital gains tax because of the step-up in basis. The old law also let people 55 or older sell their primary home and exclude up to $125,000 (married or single) in accumulated profits, but only once in a lifetime. As a result, homeowners had to keep meticulous recordkeeping from every house they owned. Some lawmakers and academics believed the law created distortions in the market, such as discouraging homeowners from downsizing, moving into rental housing or from higher-cost to lower-cost markets as their circumstances changed. The new rules The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was intended to reduce these distortions, stimulate sales, simplify recordkeeping and eliminate capital gains taxes for almost all homeowners. It exempted the first $250,000/$500,000 in profits from capital gains tax, whether or not the seller bought a new house. Profit is what's left after you subtract what you paid for the house and eligible improvements from your sales price minus commissions and other selling expenses. Taxpayers with gains under the limits generally do not have to report the sale on their tax return. Any profit over the exemption is taxed as a capital gain. The federal rate on long-term capital gains is 0%, 15% or 20% depending on income. That's lower than the rate on 'ordinary income,' such as from a job or self-employment. A large taxable gain from the sale of a home could also trigger an additional 3.8% 'net investment income tax.' A bulge in income can also force some seniors to pay substantially more for Medicare for one year. California also excludes the first $250,000/$500,000 from the sale of a primary home, but it taxes capital gains just like ordinary income, at rates up to 13.3%. Homeowners can use this exemption as often as every two years, as long as each home has been their primary residence for at least two out of five years before the sale. What happened after 1997? Initially, the new law did eliminate tax for the vast majority of homeowners, but as home prices soared, so did the number who owed tax. Between 2000 and 2003 – a few years after the rule change – only about 38,000 home sales per year nationwide, or 1.3% of all existing home sales, had gross capital gains (excluding homeowner improvements) that exceeded $500,000, according to Cotality. By the end of 2023, almost 230,000 homes or 7.9% of all home sales nationwide – and almost 29% in California – were over the limit. A study commissioned by the National Association of Realtors found that 34% of homeowners today could already exceed $250,000 in capital gains and 10% have potential gains above $500,000. Those numbers could be 56% and 23%, respectively, by 2030 and nearly 70% and 38% by 2035. 'These outdated (exemption) thresholds are already distorting the housing market and locking up inventory, and it is getting worse every year,' the association wrote. What research says Several academic studies found that the tax law change in 1997 did increase housing turnover, and may have contributed to the sharp runup in home prices from the early 2000s until 2008, when the bubble burst. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 'played a significant role in facilitating the boom in the residential real estate market that began shortly after its enactment,' Pete H. Oppenheimer, then a professor at the University of North Georgia, wrote in a 2014 paper. It created an opportunity for homeowners to receive tax free income when they resold their principal residences, which made homeownership more attractive and caused the real estate market to 'expand in volume and price,' he added. It also helped 'real estate investors and professionals to achieve tax free income … by converting rental property into a personal residence.' A Federal Reserve study published in 2008 concluded that the 1997 Act 'reversed the lock-in effect of capital gains taxes on houses with low and moderate capital gains.' However, it 'may have generated an unintended lock-in effect on houses with capital gains over the maximum exclusion amount.' Its author Hui Shan found that the short-term effect was 'much larger' than the long-term effect. A 2011 paper by Andrea Heuson and Gary Painter also found that housing turnover 'increased significantly' after 1997. 'The surprising result is how broad based the change in trading behavior is, appearing across all age ranges and impacting both trading up and trading down,' they wrote. Based on his past research, Painter predicted that eliminating the tax on home sales would increase sales. When he left his job at the University of Southern California to teach at the University of Cincinnati, Painter kept his home near Long Beach and rented it out because he didn't want to pay capital gains tax, but also in case he wanted to return to California one day. It's not just capital gains tax Capital gains are not the only culprit locking up inventory. Many homeowners with mortgages around 3% are reluctant to move, now that rates are hovering around 6% to 7%. That is the 'big 1,000-pound gorilla that has reduced mobility," Painter said. And in California, many sellers would face a big increase in their property tax assessment if they sold a long-held home and bought another. Proposition 19, passed by voters in 2020, was supposed to boost inventory by making it easier for people 55 or older to transfer their assessment from their current home to a new one, thus avoiding or reducing a property-tax increase. It also made it harder for children to keep a parent's low property tax base on an inherited home. It appears that more Bay Area seniors did move after Prop. 19 took effect, at least in the first few years. But results varied by county and the effects wore off over time. In Contra Costa, requests by seniors for Prop. 19 transfers went from around 200 per year before 2020 to about 1,000 a year after two years, but since then has tapered off to around 600 a year, said Gus Kramer, the county's assessor. In Santa Clara County, Prop. 19 'has been a lot less successful than anticipated. The biggest negative by far is capital gains,' DeLeon said. Unintended consequences If Congress eliminated capital gains tax on homes, Painter believes more people would move out of California. For people contemplating a move, losing their low property-tax base 'is not an issue, but (capital gains) taxes are. This would be an opportunity to cash in on their equity,' he said. And instead of making homes more affordable, it could increase prices. 'More generous tax treatment of homes could bid up home prices on the demand side, exacerbating concerns about housing affordability,' Joseph Rosenberg , a senior fellow with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said via email. San Francisco Chief Economist Ted Egan concurs. 'The expectation of reduced taxes upon sale would likely result in modest upward pressure on housing prices in places, like San Francisco, where profits on home sales often exceed the threshold,' he said via email. 'This in turn would lead to a modest increase in property taxes.'
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
Hiring For Potential: Why Attitude Still Trumps Experience
Young businesswoman wearing pink blazer and glasses giving thumbs up Reshma Saujani founded Girls Who Code in 2012. On paper, you'd expect her to have a deep background in tech: a computer science degree, or perhaps years working in software engineering. But look closer, and you'll find something else entirely. Saujani studied political science and law. She built her career in legal and political activism, not technology. It wasn't until she ran for U.S. Congress—the first Indian American woman to do so—that a stark gap came into focus. On the campaign trail in 2009, visiting schools in the Bronx and Queens, Saujani noticed something striking: almost no girls in computer science classrooms. So, she did what great leaders do: she spotted a problem and built a solution. Saujani didn't need to code. She needed to lead. And that's exactly what she did. She used her voice, her policy background, and her storytelling skills to build a movement. And in doing so, she helped hundreds of thousands of girls reimagine their professional futures. What Saujani's story shows is this: expertise isn't always what it looks like on a resume. Leadership doesn't always come with the 'right' credentials. And that's exactly why skills-based hiring—while smart—can't be the whole story. Two-thirds of employers now say they use it to guide decisions. Experience might be trendy. But character still wins. It's a lot easier to teach someone how to use AI than it is to teach them to show up with curiosity, initiative, and drive. That's the problem: we've developed hiring systems that reward polish over potential. Asking for five years of experience using a tool that's only existed for two doesn't just send the wrong signal. It sends the wrong people away. These systems are not just unrealistic; they're exclusionary. And they're part of the reason entry-level jobs are quietly disappearing. The result? Candidates stretch for roles they're overqualified for, while the ones they're actually right for go unfilled. Great people get passed over because they didn't go to the 'right' school or intern at the 'right' company. And the cycle of inequity repeats over and over, especially for people who were never invited into those rooms to begin with. Hiring 'safe' can feel comforting. But it often leads to underwhelming results. If you only hire for what someone's already done, you pass over the people who can grow with you. There's a better way. Stop padding job descriptions with laundry lists of software and skills. Start focusing on traits like adaptability, curiosity, coachability, and a growth mindset. This is what it means and how it looks to hire for potential. These qualities are much harder to teach than technical skills. And to uncover them, your interview questions must go deeper, beyond surface-level answers and into moments of reflection and growth. Try thoughtful questions such as: These types of prompts surface how a candidate thinks, adapts, and learns. That's where the real potential lives. Hiring for potential isn't soft; it's smart. High-potential hires often ramp up faster than expected, stay with a company longer because they see growth ahead, and help build strong, resilient cultures from the inside out. Take Menlo Innovations, a software design and development firm. Instead of relying solely on resumes, they put applicants through real-world challenges that mimic the workday and pair up candidates on paper-based tasks that reflect daily responsibilities. Those who support their partner and collaborate effectively move forward in the hiring process. And it's not just Silicon Valley tech firms. Big consulting players like Bain & Company use online assessments to evaluate a candidate's situational awareness, numerical and verbal aptitude, and logical reasoning before a technical interview is even scheduled. They're not just hiring what someone knows; they're hiring how someone thinks. When you're championing a candidate who doesn't check all of the conventional boxes, help leadership see the long view. Reframe it as a long-term investment, not a short-term plug. Point to past hires where you made a similar bet and it paid off. Highlight how this candidate's mindset or learning velocity aligns with real business needs. Be specific. Tie it to outcomes, not job titles. Because here's the truth: the strongest teams aren't built by playing it safe. They're built by taking smart, strategic risks on people with the drive to grow into the work and beyond it. You're not just filling roles. You're shaping the future of your team. A team that can stretch, adapt, and evolve alongside your company. When in doubt, hire the human, not the resume.
