Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Thursday, February 13, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 577)
Politics

Obama-Supreme-Court-split-ap

President Barack Obama, left, and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), right. (Photos: AP/Getty)

The Supreme Court sent a challenge to the ObamaCare contraception mandate by religious-affiliated employers such as the Little Sisters of the Poor back to lower courts. The high court was considering whether institutions such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charity of nuns, could be exempt from having to directly pay for or indirectly permit birth control and other reproductive coverage in their health plans.

However, the justices decided not to rule on the merits of the case, but rather sent it back to the appeals courts to make new decisions based on recent statements.

“The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases,” the court said in an unsigned, unanimous opinion. “In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.”

Lawyers for the Little Sisters of the Poor and related plaintiffs argued before the court in March that the Catholic nuns faced a “moral dilemma”: either refuse to comply and face millions in crippling fines, or violate their “sincerely held” religious beliefs.

The decision skirts another high-profile challenge before the Supreme Court at the height of an election year and a time when the court has a vacancy following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. However, the development ensures the issue will not return to the high court until after the 2016 presidential election and is yet another case where a majority on a significant ruling could not be reached with the death of Justice Scalia, who was the court’s longest serving justice.

For now, the Little Sisters of the Poor declared victory Monday.

“We are very encouraged by the Court’s decision, which is an important win for the Little Sisters. The Court has recognized that the government changed its position,” Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement. “It is crucial that the Justices unanimously ordered the government not to impose these fines and indicated that the government doesn’t need any notice to figure out what should now be obvious — the Little Sisters respectfully object. There is still work to be done, but today’s decision indicates that we will ultimately prevail in court.”

The high court two years ago ruled the Little Sisters of the Poor and its third-party insurance administrator could remain temporarily exempt from the contraception mandates imposed on them by ObamaCare while the lower courts weighed the merits of the case.

With more than six years under its belt since passage, the Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, remains deeply unpopular.

The Supreme Court sent a challenge to

Policy

Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-Getty

Donald Trump visits Turnberry Golf Club, after its $10 Million refurbishment, June 8, 2015, in Turnberry, Scotland. | Hillary Clinton speaks at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ (NALEO) 32nd Annual Conference at the in Las Vegas, June 18, 2015. (PHOTO: GETTY)

A new study compares the facts and impact of the tax plans proposed by presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump and likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The Tax Foundation released a study examining the 10-year impact of the candidates’ plans on gross domestic product, capital investment, wages, jobs and tax revenue.

Worth noting, the Tax Foundation also took a look at the plan proposed by Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, who, barring an indictment by the Justice Department as a result of the Federal Bureau of Investigation looking into her email practices during her tenure as secretary of state, will not be the party’s nominee.

On nearly every single indicator, Mr. Trump’s tax plan will have a more beneficial impact on the economy than Mrs. Clinton’s, which actually does damage to the U.S. economy over 10 years. However, despite what the presumptive Republican nominee has claimed, neither static nor dynamic scoring prevents billions of dollars in deficits as a result of Mr. Trump’s plan.

To be fair, Mr. Trump does have plans to offset the budget shortfall by reforming foreign interventions and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also called the North Atlantic Alliance or NATO. He also has plans to save money on health care and budgetary reform, which was not scored by the Tax Foundation.

Trump-Clinton-Tax-Plan-Comparison

The study took a look at both plans regarding their impact on businesses and individuals.

Tax on Businesses

Mrs. Clinton’s plan eliminates the deductibility of reinsurance premiums paid by corporations to foreign subsidiaries and provides an exclusion from income for reinsurance recovered for any arrangement where the deduction was disallowed. Establishes business tax credits for profit-sharing and apprenticeships and establishes a new tax on high-frequency trading.

While Mrs. Clinton doesn’t specify a rate, it is generally agreed upon that it would decrease volume, thus negatively impact share value by decreasing volume. Mrs. Clinton also proposes to establish business tax credits for profit-sharing and apprenticeships, a benefit that would likely be offset by new revenue streams.

Not surprisingly, the Republican candidate takes a different approach to businesses than the Democrat. The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world and the Trump plan responds by reducing the corporate income tax rate to 15%., which would make the country more competitive. It differs from traditional Republican tax reform proposals on the issue of fairness.

For instance, the plan caps the tax rate on pass-through business income (sole proprietorships, S corporations, LLCs, and partnerships) at 15% and ends tax deferral on overseas corporate income. He also caps the deductibility of interest expenses.

By some economists’ estimates, there are upwards of $2 trillion dollars overseas to avoid double-taxation, which could stimulate the economy by infusion investment. Mr. Trump enacts a one-time deemed repatriation tax of 10% on all foreign profits currently deferred in an effort to bring back that money. He also eliminates all other corporate tax expenditures and the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax.

Tax on Individuals

Mrs. Clinton proposes a 4% “surcharge” on high-income taxpayers, which the Tax Foundation says will “effectively add an additional marginal tax rate of 43.6% for taxable income over $5 million” and a “24% top marginal tax rate for qualified dividend and long-term capital gain income.”

The plan would also enact the “Buffett Rule,” a proposal named after billionaire Warren Buffet and championed by President Barack Obama that would put in place a 30% minimum tax on taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) over $1 million. The plan also phases-in the minimum tax between $1 million and $2 million of AGI.

Unlike his likely rival, Mr. Trump reforms the tax rate and consolidates 7 brackets into three: 10%, 20% and 25%. He calls for an increase in the standard deduction to $25,000 for those filing single returns and $50,000 for married filing jointly. The plan also “steepens the curve of the personal exemption phase-out and the Pease limitation on itemized deductions. Mr. Trump’s plan also eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax, which currently stands at 3.8%, as well as the Net Investment Income Tax and the very unpopular Estate Tax.

In what is clearly a populist tip by the populist nationalist Republican, the plan taxes carried interest as ordinary income.

A new study compares the facts and

Video

[brid video=”37894″ player=”2077″ title=”Trump’s ExGirlfriend New York Times Lied Story Misquoted Me”]

Rosanne Brewer Lane, the lead source in a New York Times hit piece on Donald Trump meant to cast him as a women abuser, said the paper lied and misquoted her in the story. During an appearance on Fox and Friends Monday morning, Mr. Trump’s ex-girlfriend’s interview seriously called into question the report that was published over the weekend.

“I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump,” Ms. Lane said.

Ms. Lane responded specifically to account in the report that recalled Mr. Trump complimenting her on the way she had looked in a swimsuit, which she was flattered by, not offended. She also said The New York Times had told her and her manager that the interview was not for a hit piece and would not misquote her or take her statements out of context.

Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, wasted little time in responding to the interview.

Rosanne Brewer Lane, the lead source in

Economy

manufacturing-reuters

Surveys gauging manufacturing growth or contraction in Empire State. (REUTERS)

The Empire State Manufacturing Survey, the New York Federal Reserve’s gauge of activity in the region, plummeted in May to -9.02, down from 9.56 in April. The nineteen point decline marks a return to familiar contraction territory, where the regional index–like its companions–has remained for most of the year.

The results missed the median forecast. Wall Street had anticipated a smaller decline in the reading, one which still remained positive at 6.50. Readings above 0 point to expansion, while those below indicate contraction.

While the six-month outlook was only somewhat less optimistic in May than it was in April, and the capital spending index plummeted to 3.1, its lowest reading in more than two years.

The Empire State Manufacturing Survey, the New

Politics

ObamaCare, Barack Obama's signature healthcare law overhaul, reflected in graphic image.

ObamaCare, Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law overhaul, represented in graphic image.

Should the Obama administration force insurers under ObamaCare to cover sex change operations? That’s exactly what the Department of Health and Human Services is hoping to do with a regulation they issued Friday, which will pressure health insurers to cover sex change operations that will be taxpayer subsidized through Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare.

The final rule was handed down on the same day the Obama administration ordered schools to let children use whatever bathroom or locker room matches “their chosen gender identity,” or risk losing federal funding. The administration is ramping up a pro-transgender agenda in the wake of the battle between the state of North Carolina, which passed legislation requiring them to use the bathroom matching the sex on their birth certificate.

The agency released its final “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities” rule, which relies on the enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. The regulation “prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability; enhances language assistance for individuals with limited English proficiency; and protects individuals with disabilities,” the agency said in a release.

A fact sheet released by the government that pertains to the rule regarding sex discrimination explains that health care providers cannot refuse to cover all services related to a sex change—such as hormone therapy, breast implants, and the surgery itself—as a matter of policy. Doctors and health insurers also cannot deny “health care or health coverage based on an individual’s sex, including discrimination based on pregnancy, gender identity, and sex stereotyping.”

“Categorical coverage exclusions or limitations for all health care services related to gender transition are discriminatory,” the agency said.

Read Full Story at The Washington Free Beacon

Should the Obama administration force insurers under

Policy

I have no idea whether Donald Trump believes in bigger government or smaller government. Higher taxes or lower taxes. More intervention or less. Sometimes he says things I like. Sometimes he says things that irk me.

Politicians are infamous for being cagey, but “The Donald” is an entirely different animal. Instead of using weasel words that create wiggle room, he simply makes bold statements that are impossible to reconcile.

Consider his views on government debt.

Here’s an interview with Dana Loesch of Blaze TV from earlier this week. I was in Zurich and it was past midnight, so I was a tad bit undiplomatic about Trump’s endlessly evolving views. Simply stated, it’s not a good idea to default. And it’s not a good idea to monetize debt either.

[brid video=”37751″ player=”2077″ title=”Dan Mitchell Commenting on Trump’ Meanderings on Debt Repudiation”]

For what it’s worth, while Trump is oscillating between different position on debt, one of his top advisers is claiming that his plan will produce a multi-trillion dollar surplus.

Sigh.

The sensible approach would be for Trump to make simple points.

  1. Debt is a symptom and the real problem is too much spending.
  2. The solution is to follow the Golden Rule.
  3. Therefore, impose a Swiss-style spending cap.

But he hasn’t asked me for advice, so I’m not holding my breath waiting for him to say the right thing.

It’s also a challenge to decipher Trump’s position on tax policy. He actually put forth a good tax proposal, but nobody takes it seriously since he doesn’t have a concomitant plan to restrain spending. So, his campaign supposedly designated Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore to modify the plan, but then said the original proposal would stay unchanged.

This does not create a sense of confidence.

Trump also is getting pressure on his personal tax situation. He said he would release his tax return(s). Now he says he won’t. I speculated on what this implies in an essay for Time, listing five reasons why he may decide to keep his returns confidential.

The first two reasons deal with a desire for privacy and a political concern that he may appear to be less wealthy than he’s led folks to believe.

First, he may resent the idea of letting the world look at his tax returns for reasons of personal privacy, which is an understandable sentiment. …Can Trump get away with stonewalling on his returns? Perhaps. President Barack Obama refused to release his college transcript and didn’t seem to suffer any political damage. …Second, Trump’s tax return will probably show a surprisingly low level of income, and he might be concerned that such a revelation would erode the super-successful-billionaire aura that he has created.

I also suspect he’s worried that his tax return will make him look like…gasp…a tax avoider.

Third, to the degree that Trump’s return shows a lower-than-expected amount of taxable income, this will probably be because his accountants and tax lawyers have carefully plumbed the 75,000-page internal revenue code for deductions, credits, exemptions, exclusions and other preferences… Since we all seek to legally minimize our tax liabilities, that shouldn’t be a political problem. …That normally would be a persuasive answer, but voters may look askance when they learn that Trump is taking advantage of mysterious provisions dealing with things they don’t understand, like depreciation, carryforwards, foreign tax credits, muni bonds and deferral. …Fourth, for very wealthy individuals and large companies, the complexity of the tax code means there’s no way of knowing if a tax return is accurate. …Given Trump’s persona, he presumably pushes the envelope.

Last but not least, I imagine Trump has “offshore” structures.

Fifth, it’s highly likely that Trump does business with so-called tax havens. For successful investors and entrepreneurs with cross-border economic activity, this is almost obligatory because jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands have ideal combinations of quality governance and tax neutrality. …But in a political environment where the left has tried to demonize “offshore” tax planning, any revelations about BVI companies, Panama law firms, Jersey trusts and Liechtenstein accounts will be fodder for Trump’s many enemies.

Needless to say, I greatly sympathize with Trump’s desire to minimize his tax burden and I applaud his use of so-called tax havens (which are routinely utilized by wealthy Democrats).

Donald Trump Taxes

And I even sympathize with his desire for privacy even though divulging personal financial information is now a routine obligation for politicians. The point I should have made in my essay is that Trump would be in a stronger position if he said from the start that his tax returns are nobody else’s business.

 

Donald Trump actually put forth a good

Elections

Speaker-Paul-Ryan-Leader-Nancy-Pelosi

Now House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., talk to reporters about the budget fight in December, 2015. (Photo: M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO)

Here we go again. In my first real analysis of the general election for PPD’s Election Projection Model, I am forced to waste time on the fantastical idea that Democrats will erase the Republican majority in the House.

Asked after a press conference on Wednesday whether Democrats can retake the House majority, House Democratic leadership was apparently pretty confident. “Of course,” Minority Leader Pelosi responded. It’s an answer that deserves to be met with–yet has not received–a healthy dose of skepticism.

“I think if the election were today, we could,” Pelosi told RealClearPolitics. “It’s not today, but we want to keep growing our ground game and getting out our message — mobilization on the ground, messaging in the air — to do that. But I think we have plenty of opportunity now.”

Is it possible? Sure. But if the election was held today the Democrats would fall far short of the majority goal. Let’s look at the playing field and the argument in support of a Democratic wave.

The Republican Party controls the House of Representatives by a 246 to 188 margin. Republican representatives currently occupy a total of 26 House seats in congressional districts that President Barack Obama carried in 2012. They hold 28 additional seats in congressional districts carried by Gov. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee, with less than 53% of the vote (two-party).

That means Democrats would have to carry the vast majority–if not all–of the seats that PPD’s Election Projection Model considered “Leans” Obama and, in addition, flip roughly half of the seats that we considered to “Lean” Republican. Party leaders, other well-known, frequently cited “pundits” and forecasters, seem to think this is not only possible but likely.

The basic argument from Democrats–and a few of the same election forecasters with very sad, very recent misfires under their belts–is that Hillary Clinton will trounce Donald Trump in the popular vote and Electoral College. As a result, her coattails will carry down-ballot candidates to victory.

Is there any evidence the political landscape is shaping up to seriously put the Republican majority in jeopardy? Absolutely not. In fact, we heard much the same arguments before the 2014 midterm elections, which I also correctly disputed. Here’s what I wrote:

First, despite what advantage in the generic congressional ballot the Democratic Party may have — if any — come Election Day, House districts are drawn in a manner that favor Republicans. Democrats would need a very statistically substantial lead on pre-election generic ballot surveys. In fact, they need a lead somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to 14 points in order to have any serious chance of gaining the 17 House seats needed for them to regain control of the chamber.

Those estimates were the result of data from all 17 post-World War II midterm election results (now 18). We compared them to generic congressional ballot results and drew average conclusions. Let’s put a few general rules on the table and take a look at the historical data now.

Because the generic congressional ballot is a national survey, it often cannot reflect what may be occurring in the political landscape from the battleground regions of the country. When the generic congressional ballot shows a lead of 2 to 5 points in favor of Democrats, it is skewed from the heavily-populated urban, concentrated liberal areas. It obfuscates and understates support for Republican candidates in battleground or conservative-leaning districts.

Until the summer and early fall of the actual election year, the result of the generic ballot survey has little predictive value. Further, the better Republicans are performing on the survey in early September, the more actual seats the Republican Party are likely to gain (or lose), which also overstate Democratic strength in most early predictions.

Historically, Republicans pick up more seats–or lose less seats, depending on the election–on a point-for-point basis. In other words, on average a 10-point advantage for Democrats yields just a 12-seat swing, while an identical lead for Republicans yields a 23-seat swing. Again, these are averages and also include the results of elections when districts weren’t drawn in favor of Republicans.

As of now, Democrats hold a statistically insignificant 1-point lead on the PPD average of generic ballot polls. That is among registered voters, during the earlier period when Democrats typically perform better and obviously woefully inadequate to achieve their goal of flipping 59 seats. Worth noting, the Democratic Party will almost always perform better among samples of registered voters than likely voters on the generic ballot, which helps account for the disparity in early polling and polling conducted closer to Labor Day.

For those who think the Trump factor will matter, there is little evidence to support what is truly more than wishful thinking–or, panic for some Republicans. Mrs. Clinton currently leads Mr. Trump on the PPD average by single-digits nationally and the gap is closing fast. In battleground states, where many of the target districts are located, Mr. Trump is either leading Mrs. Clinton or running essentially even. Despite the media narrative, he has already consolidated most of the rank-and-file GOP vote.

How’s that for reality? Admittedly, I knew I had to administer a dose at some point, but I didn’t expect to have to do it this early. Perhaps that is the real impact of the Trump factor this cycle.

The People's Pundit: Sadly I am forced

Opinion

Hillary-Trump-Johnson

Presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton, left, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, center, and New York businessman Donald J. Trump, right. (Photos: AP)

I will always have fond feelings for Playboy, though not for the stereotypical reason. My appreciation for the magazine is largely based on the fact that I got a very nice honorarium from the German version back in the 1990s for writing an assessment of Bill Clinton’s likely approach to economic policy (confession: he turned out to be much better than I predicted).

Dan back in the day (1990s) reading an article in Playboy where he was featured.

Unfortunately, I’ve forgotten almost all of the German I learned in high school, so I can’t read the translated version of the article that appeared in the magazine.

Now Playboy has done something else that I appreciate, putting together a very clever matrix showing what Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Greens think about various policy issues.

It’s obviously satire, but it’s very clever and effective because it does a good job of capturing stereotypes from each group (just like this poster showing 24 types of libertarians).

As you can see, the “libertarian chicken” obviously provided the answers for the third column.

In addition to mind-your-own-business Libertarians, Playboy gives us abortion-über-alles Democrats, elitist Republicans, and fuzzy-headed Greens. A bit of truth in all those caricatures.

So kudos to them for mocking all parties equally. Comedy Central probably wouldn’t be losing so many viewers if it also took this even-handed approach.

P.S. If you like libertarian-oriented humor (both pro and con), then click here and here.

Playboy has put together a very clever

Economy

Mossack Fonseca

Mossack Fonseca, the firm that leaked eleven million documents pertaining to tax shelters by oligarchs and global leaders.

Economists certainly don’t speak with one voice, but there’s a general consensus on two principles of public finance that will lead to a more competitive and prosperous economy.

To be sure, some left-leaning economists will say that high tax rates and more double taxation are nonetheless okay because they believe there is an “equity vs. efficiency” tradeoff and they are willing to sacrifice some prosperity in hopes of achieving more equality. I disagree, mostly because there’s compelling evidence that the left’s approach ultimately leads to less income for the poor, but this is a fair and honest debate. Both sides agree that lower rates and less double taxation will produce more growth (though they’ll disagree on how much growth) and both sides agree that a low-tax/faster-growth economy will produce more inequality (though they’ll disagree on whether the goal is to reduce inequality or reduce poverty). Since I’m on the low-tax/faster-growth side of the debate, this is one of the reasons why I’m a big fan of tax competition and tax havens. Simply stated, when politicians have to worry that jobs and investment can cross borders, they are less likely to impose higher tax rates and punitive levels of double taxation. Interestingly, even thestatist bureaucrats at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (who, ironically, get tax-free salaries) agree with me, writing that tax havens “may hamper the application of progressive tax rates.” They think that’s a bad thing, of course, but we both agree that tax competition means lower rates. And look at what has happened to tax rates in the past few years. Now that politicians have undermined tax competition and weakened tax havens, tax rates are climbing. So I was very surprised to see some economists signed a letter saying that so-called tax havens “serve no useful economic purpose.” Here are some excerpts.

The existence of tax havens does not add to overall global wealth or well-being; they serve no useful economic purpose. …these jurisdictions…increase inequality…and undermine…countries’ ability to collect their fair share of taxes. …There is no economic justification for allowing the continuation of tax havens.

You probably won’t be surprised by some of the economists who signed the letter. Thomas Piketty was on the list, which is hardly a surprise. Along with Jeffrey Sachs, who also has a track record of favoring more statism. Another predictable signatory is Olivier Blanchard, the former top economist at the pro-tax International Monetary Fund. The only surprise was that Angus Deaton, the most recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for economics, signed the letter. But if that’s an effective “appeal to authority,” there’s a far bigger list of Nobel Prize winners who recognize the economic consensus outlined above and who understand a one-size-fits-all approach would undermine progress. In other words, there is a very strong “economic purpose” and “economic justification” for tax havens and tax competition. Simply stated, they curtail the greed of the political class. Philip Booth of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London opined on this issue. Here’s some of what he wrote for City A.M.

…the statement that tax havens “have no useful purpose” is demonstrably wrong and most of the other claims in the letter are incredible. Offshore centres allow companies and investment funds to operate internationally without having to abide by several different sets of rules and, often, pay more tax than ought to be due. …Investors who use tax havens can avoid being taxed twice on their investments and can avoid being taxed at a higher rate than that which prevails in the country in which they live, but they do not avoid all tax. …tax havens also allow the honest to shelter their money from corrupt and oppressive politicians. …one of the advantages of tax havens is that they help hold governments to account. They make it possible for businesses to avoid the worst excesses of government largesse and crazy tax systems – including the 39 per cent US corporation tax rate. They have other functions too: it is simply wrong to say that they have no useful purpose. It is also wrong to argue that, if only corrupt governments had more tax revenue, their people would be better served.

Amen. I especially like his final point in that excerpt, which is similar to Marian Tupy’s explanation that tax planning and tax havens are good for Africa’s growth. Last but not least, Philip makes a key point about whether tax havens are bad because they are sometimes utilized by bad people.

…burglars operate where there is property. However, we would not abolish property because of burglars. We should not abolish tax havens either.

When talking to reporters, politicians, and others, I make a similar point, arguingthat we shouldn’t ban cars simply because they are sometimes used as getaway vehicles from bank robberies. The bottom line, as Professor Booth notes, is that we need tax havens and tax competition if we want reasonable fiscal systems. But this isn’t simply an issue of wanting better tax policy in order to achieve more prosperity. In part because of demographic changes, tax havens and tax competition are necessary if we want to discourage politicians from creating “goldfish government” by taxing and spending nations into economic ruin. [brid video=”37709″ player=”2077″ title=”The Economic Case for Tax Havens”] [mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

CATO economist Dan Mitchell makes the economic

Economy

Consumer-Confidence-Index-Reuters

Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index. (Photo: Reuters)

Surveys of Consumers reported on Friday that a preliminary readings show consumer confidence bounced back in May to its strongest level in nearly a year.

The University of Michigan preliminary consumer sentiment index for May, released Friday, registered at 95.8, compared with a final April reading of 89.0. May’s preliminary reading was the strongest since June 2015 and it followed the lowest reading reported since September 2015 in April.

Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected the preliminary May index would hold steady at 89.0.

“Consumer sentiment rebounded in early May due to more frequent income gains, an improved jobs outlook and the expectation of lower inflation and interest rates,” said Richard Curtin, the survey’s chief economist. “The largest gains were recorded among lower income and younger households, although the gains were recorded among all income and age subgroups as well as across all regions.”

Consumer Confidence Preliminary Results for May 2016
May Apr May M-M Y-Y
2016 2016 2015 Change Change
Index of Consumer Sentiment 95.8 89.0 90.7 +7.6% +5.6%
Current Economic Conditions 108.6 106.7 100.8 +1.8% +7.7%
Index of Consumer Expectations 87.5 77.6 84.2 +12.8% +3.9%
Next data release: May 27, 2016 for Final May data at 10am ET

Nearly all of the gains in consumer confidence this month came from the Expectations Index, which rose to its highest level in nearly a year.

“To be sure, the data still indicated the negative impact of uncertainty about future economic policies associated with the Presidential election, but its overall impact was overwhelmed by favorable economic developments,” Mr. Curtain added. “It is too early to judge the potential impact of the election on consumers’ expectations, and one month’s rebound in consumer confidence is insufficient to increase the current forecast for inflation-adjusted consumer expenditures from 2.5% during 2016.”

Surveys of Consumers reported on Friday that

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe