Most Recent Posts

The Federal Reserve's policymakers Wednesday held steady on interest rates – and gave no specific time frame for when they might change course.

That was the expected outcome of their two-day meeting.

But this changed: The policy makers seemed a bit more optimistic about the U.S. economy. Their statement said that while inflation is very low, "economic activity has been expanding moderately."

At a press conference, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said, "We have seen some progress." Still, rate hikes won't come until the Fed sees "more decisive evidence" that growth really is sustainable.

Overall, her words struck most analysts as a sign the Fed will start to nudge up interest rates, probably once in September and again before Dec. 31.

"After that, it will take its time and will only gradually tighten monetary conditions further," Nariman Behravesh, chief economist for IHS, said in a statement.

But for now, it's still groundhog day, with no changes. The Fed has not had a rate hike since June 2006 — so long ago that the housing bubble was still inflating and Shakira was assuring us that "Hips Don't Lie."

So here's what the Fed decision means for you:

The nation's central bank is going to continue holding down interest rates to encourage you to borrow money for a new car or a home rehab or some other purchase. The goal is to stimulate a recovering economy.

Some economists say that extra help isn't needed anymore. They point to signs of an improved economy. For example, the Bertelsmann Foundation's International Non-profit Credit Rating Agency just upgraded its U.S. assessment from AA+ to AAA, saying that the "United States promises to be a more reliable driver of the global economy in coming years — with expected growth of 1.5 to 3 percent in 2015, and 2.5 to 3 percent in 2016."

But the Fed noted lingering problems, saying that "business fixed investment and net exports stayed soft."

Although the Fed statement didn't mention it, there's another worrisome factor hanging over the economy. It's the trouble in Greece, which owes more money to creditors than it can afford to pay.

Because Greece belongs to the European Union, its debt crisis is a big problem. European leaders are meeting next week and will try to sort out that debt mess. But it's possible there are no solutions and Greece might have to leave the EU. That would open up all sorts of unknowns that could upset markets.

"The one and only reason the Fed chose not to act this time was because of Greece," Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist for The Economic Outlook Group, said in a statement.

"The Fed couldn't comfortably pull the interest trigger this time until it got past the potential fallout of a Greek default," he added.

Fed policymakers have been keeping its benchmark federal funds rate at near zero since December 2008.

Translation: your cost of borrowed dollars has been at historically low levels for a long time now.

Cheap loans might sound good, but there are downsides. For one thing, it's hard on savers who need to earn more interest on their money. Also, a lot of economists worry that super low interest rates make it too easy to borrow, leading to dumb spending decisions by both individuals and businesses.

So most economists would like to see interest rates rising gradually to more normal levels amid a strengthening economy.

Fed officials worry that if interest rates go up while the economy is still fragile, consumers might stop shopping and home sales could stall. Better to keep rates low as a precaution, goes the thinking.

Janet Yellen

Economy

Federal Reserve

The Obama administration finds itself in the rare position of fighting alongside House Republicans this week as it tries to overcome Friday's stinging defeat to its massive trade package, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The defeat came when Speaker John Boehner split the president's agenda that passed the Senate in May into two parts: one was Trade Promotion Authority, also known as fast-track — a law that allows Obama to negotiate the deal, then have Congress pass it with an up-or-down vote, with no debate. The other was Trade Adjustment Assistance, a safety net aimed at retraining any U.S. workers who might lose their jobs as a result of the new trade package.

The simplified version of what happened is this: Democrats really like TAA. Republicans like TPA. Boehner split them into separate votes, hoping Dems and Republicans would vote for the respective parts they liked. The Obama administration really needs TPA to negotiate the trade deal, and so to torpedo the whole deal, Democrats voted down the worker assistance package in huge numbers.

So now, there's nothing to do but wait. The House voted today to give themselves until July 30 to get the votes they need to get the package passed. And by the numbers, it's clear that Obama and the House GOP have their work cut out for them in procuring those votes.

In an extremely polarized Congress, that's an unusually haphazard-looking mix of votes. To understand exactly who voted how and why, we've broken the vote down into four groups.

No on both: 143 Democrats, 49 Republicans

Who they are: Liberal democrats (including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi) and conservative Republicans.

What it means: The Democrats that have tended to be against TPP have also tended to be more liberal Dems — like Maryland's Donna Edwards and Minnesota's Keith Ellison — who have no problem breaking with President Obama. This group of House Dems are so against TPP that they were willing to sink TAA, a policy Dems tend to like. The other thing that makes this group notable? It's huge — 143 Democrats voted no on both parts of a deal the administration badly wants to pass. The question is how many (if any) Obama can peel away from this group, given that Rep. Pelosi herself, House minority leader, was willing to break with him.

The Republicans on this side, meanwhile, include many members of the House Freedom Caucus, the group of lawmakers trying to swing their leadership's agenda even further to the right, like Idaho's Raul Labrador and Michigan's Justin Amash. These Republicans who voted against the trade agenda have given a mix of reasons — they're concerned about jobs, they think the deal is too secretive, and they simply don't want to give Obama more power, for example.

Yes on both: 27 Democrats, 81 Republicans

Who they are: Pro-TPP Republicans, Obama allies, and members in centrist, contested districts.

What it means: This group includes Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, one of the loudest supporters of TPP over the last few months. Among the few Democrats was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, falling in line behind Obama, and more centrist Dems like Texas' Henry Cuellar and California's Jim Costa. It also notably contains a few lawmakers facing tough reelection challenges from the other party next year — Nebraska Democrat Brad Ashford and Republicans Carlos Curbelo of Florida, Iowa's Rod Blum, and Illinois' Bob Dold. Voting for both TPA and TAA may be a way for these lawmakers to show they're capable of reaching out across the aisle.

This group also notably includes some Democrats — Kathleen Rice of New York and Ami Bera of California — who took heat from labor for their support. Labor ran ads in those states slamming those lawmakers, even saying they didn't mind if a Republican won in Bera's district, as Politico reported.

No on worker assistance, yes on fast-track: 1 Democrat, 109 Republicans

Who they are: John Boehner and the largest chunk of Republicans.

What it means: There's a reason virtually no Democrats (save Texas' Ruben Hinojosa) voted this way — this is the vote for what Republicans wanted and against the Democrat-friendly portion of the bill. Republicans have in the past viewed TAA as an expensive, ineffective, necessary evil for getting trade deals passed, as AEI's Alex Brill wrote after the vote. These are the lawmakers who took the opportunity to make it clear they see TAA as unnecessary.

Yes on worker assistance, no on fast-track: 13 Democrats, 5 Republicans

Who they are: Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and a dozen other Dems, plus a few moderate Republicans.

What it means: This tiny, Democrat-dominated group did what Boehner had expected many Dems would do — they took the opportunity to vote for worker assistance and against Trade Promotion Authority, thinking that even if a trade deal they didn't like passed, they would at least be supporting the policy they do like.

—-

Now, there's potentially a month and a half for Obama and pro-TPP Republicans to try to get the votes they need on TAA. But not everyone is optimistic. As Maryland Democratic Rep. and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday, "There's more time now. Now, whether there's – six weeks, that's what we're talking about, six, seven weeks approximately – whether there's sufficient time to bridge the gaps is probably questionable."

Saying that the United States can no longer beat its international competition, Donald Trump announced his candidacy to be the country's next president.

"Our country needs a truly great leader, and we need a truly great leader now," Trump said. He said that rather than being a cheerleader for America, President Obama has been "a negative force."

We need somebody that can take the brand of the United States and make it great again," Trump said. At one point, he also said the country needs a leader who has written The Art of the Deal — his 1987 book.

"I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created," Trump said after stating his intentions.

Listing the trillions of dollars the U.S. owes to countries such as China and Japan, Trump asked, "How stupid are our leaders?"

After taking the stage to a sustained ovation as the song "Rockin' in the Free World" blared in Trump Tower in New York City, Trump laid out a list of things he would fix if he were in charge, from immigration and America's military and energy strategies to the economy.

"Our enemies are getting stronger and stronger by the day, and we as a country are getting weaker," Trump said.

Taking a shot at the current administration, Trump said, "We have been sold the big lie: Obamacare."

He added that he would replace the plan with something better.

To learn more about Trump's background and his politics, check out the post 5 Things You Should Know About Donald Trump by our pals at It's All Politics.

Earlier Tuesday, Trump repeatedly promoted his announcement on Periscope, the live-streaming service that specializes in mobile devices.

2016 Republican presidential nomination

Donald Trump

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, (R-Wis.) says approving a massive trade package sought by President Obama will allow the U.S. to "write the rules" of the global economy. Parts of the package are now in limbo in the House.

Ryan spoke with NPR's Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep about the trade deal and about Trade Promotion Authority, also known as fast-track, which would allow the president to negotiate the trade agreement with Pacific Rim nations known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and then have Congress pass it with an up-or-down vote.

On what the trade package does for the U.S.:

"What we're requiring in these negotiations, as we direct in our trade promotion authority legislation, is that these other countries level the playing field — they treat us like we treat them, they open their markets reciprocally to ours to our exports, and they raise their standards to our standards. Play by our rules with respect to things like intellectual property protection, rule of law, those kinds of things that are very important to make sure that we set the standards for the global economy.

"So if it goes like people like myself hope it goes, then America along with our allies are writing the rules of this global economy at the beginning of this 21st century. If we chose not to engage, if we say America shouldn't bother negotiating trade agreements ... then we're simply saying, 'We forfeit the leadership role in the world to write the rules' and we let other countries such as China write the rules instead of us."

On arguments that deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership will cost American jobs:

"Since ... 2007, there have been 100 trade agreements struck around the world without America. And that means other countries are already doing this, getting better access, getting better market access, and we're not, and that means we lose jobs."

On arguments from some Democrats that the trade deal will allow other nations to effectively lower U.S. wages and standards for financial rules, labor regulations, and the environment:

"There really isn't any justice in that claim, it's really kind of a straw man or what I'd call a red herring argument, because we make it extremely clear in our trade promotion authority that only Congress can change laws. You can't enter into an agreement that Congress doesn't approve that changes our laws.

"We make it very clear that the goal of this is to have other countries raise their standards to our levels and not degrade their standards. That's one of the criticisms from agreements back in the 20th century. So we want modern agreements that raise high standards to get other countries to play by our rules, and we do not allow other countries through any mechanism to require or force changes in U.S. laws."

On whether the treaty would mean foreign trading partners can challenge U.S. policies and regulations that they think adversely affect them:

"No. They can get monetary damage penalties, they can't challenge or change regulations at any level of our government."

On criticism that the treaty is being written in secret:

"It's one of the reasons why we're trying to pass trade promotion authority, so that we can guarantee that the public gets to see any trade agreement that is reached. We do not have trade promotion authority in place right now, and ... as a result of that, the kind of transparency that occurs is whatever the administration wants.

"What we are demanding and insisting on in our trade promotion authority is not only that members of Congress have full access to anything that's classified for the moment, but once an agreement is actually reached between countries, that agreement must be made public ... for 60 days for the public to see before a president can even sign an agreement, and when he signs it he simply sends it to Congress and then Congress spends a minimum of 30 days ... considering the agreement.

"The reasons some things are classified right now is it's in negotiations. You don't want to go into negotiations at any level, whether it's transactions or government-to-government with all your cards face up."

trans pacific partnership

Paul Ryan