Latest news with #FederalReserveBankofPhiladelphia
Los Angeles Times
06-06-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
CalAssist Mortgage Fund provides $105M in aid for California Disaster Survivors
The CalAssist Mortgage Fund is a new source of financial relief for California homeowners whose properties were destroyed after recent disasters. The fund provides grants of up to $20,000 to cover three months of mortgage payments for eligible homeowners. The state has allocated $105 million for the program. 'California is extending this ongoing support to disaster victims in Los Angeles and beyond, by assisting with mortgage payments to relieve financial pressure and stress as families rebuild and recover,' Governor Gavin Newsom said in a press release. The grants do not need to be repaid and will be sent directly to mortgage companies, minimizing the steps required for processing and allowing homeowners to focus on recovery. Major fires, floods, and other government-declared disasters or states of emergency that occurred between January 2023 and January 2025 are qualifying events for the grants, including the Eaton and Palisades fires that burned thousands of homes. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, which analyzed wildfire losses in California between 2017 and 2021, found that nearly 40% of damaged homes were underinsured by more than $100,000, and more than 1 in 5 had shortfalls exceeding $200,000. The prevalence of these types of insurance gaps, combined with the emotional and financial toll of losing a home, highlights the importance of programs like the CalAssist Mortgage Fund. 'Homeowners whose home was destroyed in a recent fire, flood or other disaster deserve support in their recovery. We know that recovery takes time, and the state is here to support,' Newsom said in the release. The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) is administering the program. In addition to the mortgage grants, CalHFA is also providing $25 million in housing counseling support through its National Mortgage Settlement (NMS) Housing Counseling program. This program is designed to help homeowners understand their options, complete applications, and navigate the recovery process. To be eligible for financial assistance through the CalAssist Mortgage Fund, an applicant's primary residence must be a single-family home, condo, or permanently affixed manufactured home. Properties with up to four units are included. Disaster survivors must also have an active mortgage or reverse mortgage, and the property cannot currently be in foreclosure. Applications for the CalAssist Mortgage Fund open on June 12, 2025. Homeowners are encouraged to apply as soon as possible before funds are exhausted. Steps to Apply For more information on eligibility and the application process, visit Disaster survivors who need assistance can also call 1-800-501-0019 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. The LA County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs' foreclosure prevention expert can help homeowners facing difficulty paying their mortgage. You can also discuss other relief options with a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-certified housing counselor.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Looking back at election forecasts
Predicting future events is difficult. The Babylonians discovered this nearly 2,700 years ago, when they began trying to predict the weather. We have been working to improve those forecasts ever since. Lives, crops and more depended on them. It took until 1859 for a country (Britain) to offer its first official weather forecast (for shipping, the lifeblood of the maritime empire). After millennia of refinement, just how accurate are weather forecasts? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tells us that five-day forecasts are accurate nearly 90 percent of the time. Ten-day forecasts and longer are only correct about half the time. When it comes to where hurricanes will make landfall, even a 48-hour forecast has a margin of error around 50 nautical miles. Humans can be even less predictable than weather patterns. Yet here, too, the stakes can be sky-high. Billions, if not trillions, of dollars are at stake in economic forecasts. Corporations, stock market investors and even the Federal Reserve rely on them to make consequential decisions. Two Berkeley business school researchers analyzed responses to the Survey of Professional Forecasters, conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia since 1968. They found forecasters were correct a mere 23 percent of the time. To take just one recent example, economists predicted U.S. gross domestic product would grow by 1.3 percent in 2024. In fact, the growth rate was more than twice the forecast. A dear friend who spent a few years working at a prominent econometric forecasting firm decades ago, reported their staff motto was 'we predicted 10 of the last three recessions.' Election forecasting has a shorter history. It is both more difficult and less consequential, since the forecasts have no effect on the real world. But it has grown into a cottage industry. Given the difficulties, it is surprising just how accurate these forecasts have proven to be, especially when they employ data collected many months prior to the event itself. The American Political Science Association recently published a journal with a dozen forecasts all completed well before the election, each of which used somewhat different data and varying methodologies. Most of them foresaw the close popular vote finish. The high-end prediction for then-Vice President Kamala Harris's share of the popular vote was 54.5 percent and the low-end was 45 percent — the first based on online betting data, the second on the expectations of ordinary people, techniques that I would caution against. Still, most of the predictions clustered within a few points of the actual results. Of the 11 entrants who forecast the popular vote, five foresaw victory for President Trump and six a win for Harris. Five predicted an Electoral College victory for Trump, whereas three wrongly anticipated that Harris would win the electoral vote. As regular readers would expect, the predictions based on fundamentals (the economy, partisanship, presidential approval) tended to be the most accurate. As I have described before, Ray Fair's model, the longest running such forecast (but not included in the American Political Science Association collection), and based largely on hard economic indicators, was within a quarter point of the actual result. Charles Tien and Michael Lewis-Beck added presidential approval to a smaller array of economic variables, producing a forecast also less than a point off the mark. Models employing poll data tended to be slightly farther off. I have previously quoted statistician George Box saying that 'all models are wrong. Some are useful.' Models are (over-) simplifications of the world. To be wholly right, they'd have to be as rich, complex, and confusing as the world itself. But these simplifications can tell us something about the 'whys' of this and other presidential elections. For example, despite the conventional wisdom asserting elections are about the future, most of the accurate models use retrospective information about the past, not data about future expectations. None of these models use information about the candidates' personalities, abilities or issue positions. Which is to say, the 2024 election was destined to be close, but any Democrat would have had a difficult time winning it. The situational deck was stacked against us, and neither candidate had a secret formula for greatly exceeding expectations. An exceptional candidate backed by an exceptional campaign may have been able to overcome the odds, but that's exactly what would have been required — beating the odds. Would a different candidate, or one who had faced a primary, have done better? We have no way of knowing, but there is no evidence or suggestion Harris blew a race that was hers to lose. Would former President Biden have done better or worse? Again, we cannot know, though one of the American Political Science Association modelers claims evidence that Biden himself would have done slightly worse than Harris did. It is no longer fashionable to quote Karl Marx, but he was right in saying that individual people 'make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing.' Psychology teaches us that humans put too much weight on personal factors while underrating the power of circumstances and situations in shaping behavior. These models remind us that circumstances count for a lot and that the new science of presidential election forecasting stacks up pretty well, as predictions go. Mark Mellman is president of The Mellman Group a consultancy that has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. He served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 30 years and is a member of the American Association of Political Consultants' Hall of Fame. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
21-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Looking back at election forecasts
Predicting future events is difficult. The Babylonians discovered this nearly 2,700 years ago, when they began trying to predict the weather. We have been working to improve those forecasts ever since. Lives, crops and more depended on them. It took until 1859 for a country (Britian) to offer its first official weather forecast (for shipping, the lifeblood of the maritime empire). After millennia of refinement, just how accurate are weather forecasts? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tells us that five-day forecasts are accurate nearly 90 percent of the time. Ten-day forecasts and longer are only correct about half the time. When it comes to where hurricanes will make landfall, even a 48-hour forecast has a margin of error around 50 nautical miles. Humans can be even less predictable than weather patterns. Yet here, too, the stakes can be sky-high. Billions, if not trillions, of dollars are at stake in economic forecasts. Corporations, stock market investors and even the Federal Reserve rely on them to make consequential decisions. Two Berkeley business school researchers analyzed responses to the Survey of Professional Forecasters, conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia since 1968. They found forecasters were correct a mere 23 percent of the time. To take just one recent example, economists predicted U.S. gross domestic product would grow by 1.3 percent in 2024. In fact, the growth rate was more than twice the forecast. A dear friend who spent a few years working at a prominent econometric forecasting firm decades ago, reported their staff motto was 'we predicted 10 of the last three recessions.' Election forecasting has a shorter history. It is both more difficult and less consequential, since the forecasts have no effect on the real world. But it has grown into a cottage industry. Given the difficulties, it is surprising just how accurate these forecasts have proven to be, especially when they employ data collected many months prior to the event itself. The American Political Science Association recently published a journal with a dozen forecasts all completed well before the election, each of which used somewhat different data and varying methodologies. Most of them foresaw the close popular vote finish. The high-end prediction for Harris's share of the popular vote was 54.5 percent and the low-end was 45 percent — the first based on online betting data, the second on the expectations of ordinary people, techniques that I would caution against. Still, most of the predictions clustered within a few points of the actual results. Of the 11 entrants who forecast the popular vote, five foresaw victory for President Trump and six a win for Kamala Harris. Five predicted an Electoral College victory for Trump, whereas three wrongly anticipated that Harris would win the electoral vote. As regular readers would expect, the predictions based on fundamentals (the economy, partisanship, presidential approval) tended to be the most accurate. As I have described before, Ray Fair's model, the longest running such forecast (but not included in the American Political Science Association collection), and based largely on hard economic indicators, was within a quarter point of the actual result. Charles Tien and Michael Lewis-Beck added presidential approval to a smaller array of economic variables, producing a forecast also less than a point off the mark. Models employing poll data tended to be slightly farther off. I have previously quoted statistician George Box saying that 'all models are wrong. Some are useful.' Models are (over-) simplifications of the world. To be wholly right, they'd have to be as rich, complex, and confusing as the world itself. But these simplifications can tell us something about the 'whys' of this and other presidential elections. For example, despite the conventional wisdom asserting elections are about the future, most of the accurate models use retrospective information about the past, not data about future expectations. None of these models use information about the candidates' personalities, abilities or issue positions. Which is to say, the 2024 election was destined to be close, but any Democrat would have had a difficult time winning it. The situational deck was stacked against us, and neither candidate had a secret formula for greatly exceeding expectations. An exceptional candidate backed by an exceptional campaign may have been able to overcome the odds, but that's exactly what would have been required — beating the odds. Would a different candidate, or one who had faced a primary, have done better? We have no way of knowing, but there is no evidence or suggestion Vice President Kamala Harris blew a race that was hers to lose. Would former President Joe Biden have done better or worse? Again, we cannot know, though one of the American Political Science Association modelers claims evidence that Biden himself would have done slightly worse than Harris did. It is no longer fashionable to quote Karl Marx, but he was right in saying that individual people 'make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing.' Psychology teaches us that humans put too much weight on personal factors while underrating the power of circumstances and situations in shaping behavior. These models remind us that circumstances count for a lot and that the new science of presidential election forecasting stacks up pretty well, as predictions go. Mark Mellman is president of The Mellman Group a consultancy that has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. He served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 30 years and is a member of the American Association of Political Consultants' Hall of Fame.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
As Republicans Eye Sweeping Medicaid Cuts, Missouri Offers a Preview
The prospect of sweeping federal cuts to Medicaid is alarming — especially to some Missourians who remember the last time the public medical insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities was pressed for cash in the state. In 2005, Missouri adopted some of the strictest eligibility standards in the nation, reduced benefits, and increased patients' copayments for the joint federal-state program due to state budget shortfalls totaling about $2.4 billion over several prior years. More than 100,000 Missourians lost coverage as a result, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that the changes led to increases in credit card borrowing and debt in third-party collections. A woman told NPR that year that her $6.70-an-hour McDonald's job put her over the new income limits and rendered her ineligible, even though she was supporting three children on about $300 a week. A woman receiving $865 a month in disability payments worried at a town hall meeting about not being able to raise her orphaned granddaughter as the state asked her to pay $167 a month to keep her health coverage. Now, Missouri could lose an estimated $2 billion a year in federal funding as congressional Republicans look to cut at least $880 billion over a decade from a pool of funding that includes Medicaid programs nationwide. Medicaid and the closely related Children's Health Insurance Program together insure roughly 79 million people — about 1 in 5 Americans. 'We're looking at a much more significant impact with the loss of federal funds even than what 2005 was,' said Amy Blouin, president of the progressive Missouri Budget Project think tank. 'We're not going to be able to protect kids. We're not going to be able to protect people with disabilities from some sort of impact.' At today's spending levels, a cut of $880 billion to Medicaid could lead to states' losing federal funding ranging from $78 million a year in Wyoming to $13 billion a year in California, according to an analysis from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. State lawmakers nationwide would then be left to address the shortfalls, likely through some combination of slashing benefits or eligibility, raising taxes, or finding a different large budget item to cut, such as education spending. Republican lawmakers are floating various proposals to cut Medicaid, including one to reduce the money the federal government sends to states to help cover adults who gained access to the program under the Affordable Care Act's provision known as Medicaid expansion. The 2010 health care law allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility to cover more adults with low incomes. The federal government is picking up 90% of the tab for that group. About 20 million people nationwide are now covered through that expansion. Missouri expanded Medicaid in 2021. That has meant that a single working-age adult in Missouri can now earn up to $21,597 a year and qualify for coverage, whereas before, nondisabled adults without children couldn't get Medicaid coverage. That portion of the program now covers over 329,000 Missourians, more than a quarter of the state's Medicaid recipients. For every percentage point that the federal portion of the funding for that group decreases, Missouri's Medicaid director estimated, the state could lose $30 million to $35 million a year. But the equation is even more complicated given that Missouri expanded access via a constitutional amendment. Voters approved the expansion in 2020 after the state's Republican leadership resisted doing so for a decade. That means changes to Medicaid expansion in Missouri would require voters to amend the state constitution again. The same is true in South Dakota and Oklahoma. So even if Congress attempted to narrowly target cuts to the nation's Medicaid expansion population, Washington University in St. Louis health economist Timothy McBride said, Missouri's expansion program would likely stay in place. 'Then you would just have to find the money elsewhere, which would be brutal in Missouri,' McBride said. In Crestwood, a suburb of St. Louis, Sandra Smith worries her daughter's in-home nursing care would be on the chopping block. Nearly all in-home services are an optional part of Medicaid that states are not required to include in their programs. But the services have been critical for Sandra and her 24-year-old daughter, Sarah. Sarah Smith has been disabled for most of her life due to seizures from a rare genetic disorder called Dravet syndrome. She has been covered by Medicaid in various ways since she was 3. She needs intensive, 24-hour care, and Medicaid pays for a nurse to come to their home 13 hours a day. Her mother serves as the overnight caregiver and covers when the nurses are sick — work Sandra Smith is not allowed to be compensated for and that doesn't count toward the 63-year-old's Social Security. Having nursing help allows Sandra Smith to work as an independent podcast producer and gives her a break from being the go-to-person for providing care 24 hours a day, day after day, year after year. 'I really and truly don't know what I would do if we lost the Medicaid home care. I have no plan whatsoever,' Sandra Smith said. 'It is not sustainable for anyone to do infinite, 24-hour care without dire physical health, mental health, and financial consequences, especially as we parents get into our elder years.' Elias Tsapelas, director of fiscal policy at the conservative Show-Me Institute, said potential changes to Medicaid programs depend on the extent of any budget cuts that Congress ultimately passes and how much time states have to respond. A large cut implemented immediately, for example, would require state legislators to look for parts of the budget they have the discretion to cut quickly. But if states have time to absorb funding changes, he said, they would have more flexibility. 'I'm not ready to think that Congress is going to willingly put us on the path of making every state go cut their benefits for the most vulnerable,' Tsapelas said. Missouri's congressional delegation split along party lines over the recent budget resolution calling for deep spending cuts, with the Republicans who control six of the eight House seats and both Senate seats all voting for it. But 76% of the public, including 55% of Republicans, say they oppose major federal funding cuts to Medicaid, according to a national KFF poll conducted April 8-15. And Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican, has said that he does not support cutting Medicaid and posted on the social platform X that he was told by President Donald Trump that the House and Senate would not cut Medicaid benefits and that Trump won't sign any benefit cuts. 'I hope congressional leadership will get the message,' Hawley posted. He declined to comment for this article. U.S. House Republicans are aiming to pass a budget by Memorial Day, after many state legislatures, including Missouri's, will have adjourned for the year. Meanwhile, Missouri lawmakers are poised to pass a tax cut that is estimated to reduce state revenue by about $240 million in the first year. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF. The post As Republicans Eye Sweeping Medicaid Cuts, Missouri Offers a Preview appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Miami Herald
12-05-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
As Republicans eye sweeping Medicaid cuts, Missouri offers a preview
CRESTWOOD, Mo. - The prospect of sweeping federal cuts to Medicaid is alarming to some Missourians who remember the last time the public medical insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities was pressed for cash in the state. In 2005, Missouri adopted some of the strictest eligibility standards in the nation, reduced benefits, and increased patients' copayments for the joint federal-state program due to state budget shortfalls totaling about $2.4 billion over several prior years. More than 100,000 Missourians lost coverage as a result, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that the changes led to increases in credit card borrowing and debt in third-party collections. A woman told NPR that year that her $6.70-an-hour McDonald's job put her over the new income limits and rendered her ineligible, even though she was supporting three children on about $300 a week. A woman receiving $865 a month in disability payments worried at a town hall meeting about not being able to raise her orphaned granddaughter as the state asked her to pay $167 a month to keep her health coverage. Now, Missouri could lose an estimated $2 billion a year in federal funding as congressional Republicans look to cut at least $880 billion over a decade from a pool of funding that includes Medicaid programs nationwide. Medicaid and the closely related Children's Health Insurance Program together insure roughly 79 million people- about 1 in 5 Americans. "We're looking at a much more significant impact with the loss of federal funds even than what 2005 was," said Amy Blouin, president of the progressive Missouri Budget Project think tank. "We're not going to be able to protect kids. We're not going to be able to protect people with disabilities from some sort of impact." At today's spending levels, a cut of $880 billion to Medicaid could lead to states' losing federal funding ranging from $78 million a year in Wyoming to $13 billion a year in California, according to an analysis from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. State lawmakers nationwide would then be left to address the shortfalls, likely through some combination of slashing benefits or eligibility, raising taxes, or finding a different large budget item to cut, such as education spending. Republican lawmakers are floating various proposals to cut Medicaid, including one to reduce the money the federal government sends to states to help cover adults who gained access to the program under the Affordable Care Act's provision known as Medicaid expansion. The 2010 health care law allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility to cover more adults with low incomes. The federal government is picking up 90% of the tab for that group. About 20 million people nationwide are now covered through that expansion. Missouri expanded Medicaid in 2021. That has meant that a single working-age adult in Missouri can now earn up to $21,597 a year and qualify for coverage, whereas before, nondisabled adults without children couldn't get Medicaid coverage. That portion of the program now covers over 329,000 Missourians, more than a quarter of the state's Medicaid recipients. For every percentage point that the federal portion of the funding for that group decreases, Missouri's Medicaid director estimated, the state could lose$30 million to $35 million a year. But the equation is even more complicated given that Missouri expanded access via a constitutional amendment. Voters approved the expansion in 2020 after the state's Republican leadership resisted doing so for a decade. That means changes to Medicaid expansion in Missouri would require voters to amend the state constitution again. The same is true in South Dakota and Oklahoma. So even if Congress attempted to narrowly target cuts to the nation's Medicaid expansion population, Washington University in St. Louis health economist Timothy McBride said, Missouri's expansion program would likely stay in place. "Then you would just have to find the money elsewhere, which would be brutal in Missouri," McBride said. In Crestwood, a suburb of St. Louis, Sandra Smith worries her daughter's in-home nursing care would be on the chopping block. Nearly all in-home services are an optional part of Medicaid that states are not required to include in their programs. But the services have been critical for Sandra and her 24-year-old daughter, Sarah. Sarah Smith has been disabled for most of her life due to seizures from a rare genetic disorder called Dravet syndrome. She has been covered by Medicaid in various ways since she was 3. She needs intensive, 24-hour care, and Medicaid pays for a nurse to come to their home 13 hours a day. Her mother serves as the overnight caregiver and covers when the nurses are sick - work Sandra Smith is not allowed to be compensated for and that doesn't count toward the 63-year-old's Social Security. Having nursing help allows Sandra Smith to work as an independent podcast producer and gives her a break from being the go-to-person for providing care 24 hours a day, day after day, year after year. "I really and truly don't know what I would do if we lost the Medicaid home care. I have no plan whatsoever," Sandra Smith said. "It is not sustainable for anyone to do infinite, 24-hour care without dire physical health, mental health, and financial consequences, especially as we parents get into our elder years." Elias Tsapelas, director of fiscal policy at the conservative Show-Me Institute, said potential changes to Medicaid programs depend on the extent of any budget cuts that Congress ultimately passes and how much time states have to respond. A large cut implemented immediately, for example, would require state legislators to look for parts of the budget they have the discretion to cut quickly. But if states have time to absorb funding changes, he said, they would have more flexibility. "I'm not ready to think that Congress is going to willingly put us on the path of making every state go cut their benefits for the most vulnerable," Tsapelas said. Missouri's congressional delegation split along party lines over the recent budget resolution calling for deep spending cuts, with the Republicans who control six of the eight House seats and both Senate seats all voting for it. But 76% of the public, including 55% of Republicans, say they oppose major federal funding cuts to Medicaid, according to a national KFF poll conducted April 8-15. And Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican, has said that he does not support cutting Medicaid and posted on the social platform X that he was told by President Donald Trump that the House and Senate would not cut Medicaid benefits and that Trump won't sign any benefit cuts. "I hope congressional leadership will get the message," Hawley posted. He declined to comment for this article. U.S. House Republicans are aiming to pass a budget by Memorial Day, after many state legislatures, including Missouri's, will have adjourned for the year. Meanwhile, Missouri lawmakers are poised to pass a tax cut that is estimated to reduce state revenue by about $240 million in the first year. ____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
