Bissell recalls multi reach hand and floor vacuum cleaners due to fire hazard. (Consumer Product Safety Commission)
(NEW YORK) — Bissell, a floor cleaning product company, recalled over 150,000 of its Multi Reach Hand and Floor Vacuum Cleaners due to a potential fire hazard, according to an announcement on the United States Product Safety Commission and a separate announcement on the company’s website.
According to the USPSC’s release posted on Thursday, the vacuum’s battery pack has the potential to “overheat and smoke, posing a fire hazard.”
The announcement said 142,000 units were recalled in the United States. Additionally, about 14,600 units were sold in Canada.
According to the announcement, Bissell had been notified of “17 reports of the recalled vacuum cleaners smoking and emitting a burning odor.”
“Six of the reports included the battery pack catching fire, three of which resulted in minor property damage and two resulting in minor burn injuries,” the release stated.
“Consumer safety is our top priority, and we are working in full cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to voluntarily recall our Multi Reach™ Hand and Floor Vacuum Cleaners,” a statement read from a Bissell spokesperson provided to “Good Morning America.”
“We are asking all consumers to stop using the vacuum immediately, and to visit www.BISSELL.com/recall in which they can learn more about impacted models and steps to receive a free replacement,” concluded the statement.
The products were sold in-store at major retailers including Lowe’s, Macy’s, Kohl’s, Target, Walmart and Best Buy and online at www.bissell.com, www.amazon.com and www.hsn.com.
The retailers did not immediately respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The release asks consumers to cease use of the vacuums and contact the company “for instructions on how to deplete the charge on the battery and receive a free replacement vacuum.”
Rather than disposing of the recalled lithium batteries in the trash, the release stated to dispose the batteries “in accordance with any local and state laws.”
“These potentially hazardous batteries must be handled differently than other batteries,” states the release, adding “Do not deposit this recalled battery in used battery recycling boxes found at various retail and home improvement stores.”
The specific model numbers impacted by the recall are 1985, 19851 (also called Multi Auto), 19859, 1985T, 2151, 21512, 21513, 21517, 21518, 21519, 2151A, 2151T, 2151W and 2151V.
The release notes consumers can locate their model number on the product rating label behind the dirt tank.
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, apologizes to families who have been harmed due to unsafe social media during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Jan. 31, 2024, in Washington. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Chief executive officers of some of the biggest social media companies, from Facebook to Snapchat, were questioned Wednesday in a Senate hearing on Capitol Hill .
Filling the seats behind them were parents, caregivers and loved ones of young people who they say were harmed due to social media use.
In an emotional moment during the hearing, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, turned to them and delivered an apology.
“It’s terrible. No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered,” Zuckerberg said while standing and speaking directly to the families, many of whom held up large photos of their loved ones. “And this is why we invest so much and are going to continue doing industry-leading efforts to make sure that no one has to go through the things your families have had to suffer.”
In addition to Zuckerberg, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which was intended to increase support for federal legislation to safeguard children online, also included testimony from X’s Linda Yaccarino, TikTok’s Shou Zi Chew, Snap’s Evan Spiegel and Discord’s Jason Citron.
Each of the five CEOs addressed the families in the room, giving their condolences to people whose children and loved ones died due to factors including suicide and drug overdoses.
“I’m so sorry that we have not been able to prevent these tragedies,” Spiegel said to families whose children died after allegedly purchasing drugs on Snapchat, an issue over which Snap is facing a class action lawsuit.
Here are four questions answered about the hearing and online safety, as parents and caregivers try to navigate both:
1. Why was the hearing held at this time?
The hearing took place as legislators try to drum up support for federal regulation of social media companies around online safety, arguing the companies have not done enough on their own to protect kids.
The hearing also comes as experts continue to ring alarms about the impact of social media on young people.
According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, daily cyber tips of child sexual abuse material online have gone up tenfold in the past 10 years, reaching 100,000 daily reports in 2023. The FBI has said that last year alone, it received over 13,000 reports of online “sextortion.”
Last year, the American Psychological Association issued first-of-its-kind recommendations intended to help teenagers use social media safely, including setting time limits, encouraging family discussions about social media and parental monitoring.
The U.S. Surgeon General last year issued an advisory warning of an urgent public health issue regarding social media usage and youth mental health.
Most social media platforms currently have a minimum user age of 13.
In his opening remarks at Wednesday’s hearing, Zuckerberg pushed back on the link between social media and young people’s negative mental health.
“With so much of our lives spent on mobile devices and social media, it’s important to look into the effects on teen mental health and well-being. I take this very seriously,” Zuckerberg said. “Mental health is a complex issue and the existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes.”
2. Did social media CEOs and legislators reach any consensus?
In short answer, no.
Spiegel, the head of Snapchat, offered his support again on Wednesday for The Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA bill, which aims to remove “harmful ads and posts, such as addiction, eating disorders, and suicide from showing up on children’s accounts,” according to supporters of the bill.
Yaccarino said X was also supportive of KOSA, but Chew, Citron and Zuckerberg didn’t commit to backing the bill in its current form.
Yaccarino said she also supported the SHIELD Act, which would allow criminal prosecution of people who share others’ private images online without consent, and the Stop CSAM Act, a bill to crack down on the proliferation of child sex abuse material. Asked if he supported the CSAM measure, Chew said the spirit of the bill is “in line with what we want to do” and that the company would comply if it became law.
Zuckerberg said he agrees with the “goals” in some of the handful of bills that address online safety, but not the specifics, and touted Meta’s own legislative proposal instead.
Both Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin of Illinois and ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the time for Congress to act is now.
Durbin noted Congress’ role in the failure to push federal legislation forward, saying, “The tech industry alone is not to blame for the situation we’re in, those of us in Congress need to look in the mirror.”
Graham said Republicans are “ready to answer the call.”
3. How did parents at the hearing react to the CEOs’ testimony?
Sam Chapman, the father of Sammy, a 16-year-old who died in 2021 after overdosing on a fentanyl-laced pill he allegedly obtained from a person he met on Snapchat, told ABC News he felt Zuckerberg’s apology was “halfhearted.”
“I felt like it was a halfhearted apology … and he didn’t really apologize directly, it was sort of around the corner,” Chapman told ABC News’ Kyra Phillips following Wednesday’s hearing.
South Carolina state Rep. Brandon Guffey, who blames Instagram for the death of his teenage son due to suicide, called Zuckerberg a “liar” after the hearing.
“Your actions speak louder than words,” he told ABC News’ Selina Wang, referencing Zuckerberg’s apology to the families.
Another victim at the hearing, Leah Juliett, said when they were 15, they had no recourse after photos showing their naked body were “disseminated like trading cards” on Facebook Messenger and then uploaded to Facebook.
Juliett described to ABC News what it was like to be in the same room as Zuckerberg Wednesday, saying, “The man who initially exploited my body is currently incarcerated, but the man who allowed my abuse to spread on Facebook was in that hearing room with me moments ago. His name is Mark Zuckerberg.”
4. What can parents and caregivers do to help keep kids safe on social media?
Diana Graber, a digital literacy expert and author of the book Raising Humans in a Digital World, told ABC News that parents do not have to wait for legislators and social media companies to act.
“We are empowered with so many tools to keep our kids safe,” Graber said. “And we can’t sit back and expect technology companies to do that, because that’s not why they’re in business.”
Graber, also the founder of Cyber Civics, a digital literacy curriculum, said her top tip for parents is to at “ground zero” with their child when it comes to social media.
“You want to be with them every step of the way, introducing them to technology that’s developmentally appropriate. Do it with them, be curious with them and be excited with them,” Graber said. “When they turn 13 and they join Instagram or whatever platform, they’re used to having you in their world, and you can be shocked together or curious together.”
She continued, “Then, if and when something bad happens … it’s normal and natural for them to talk to you about it, because you’ve done it with them forever.”
When a child signs up for a social media platform, Graber said the child’s parents or caregivers should sign up too so they can learn and explore the platform together.
Just like with other aspects of family life, Graber said parents should have emergency plans with their kids when it comes to social media too.
“If something bad happens, every kid should know what to do,” Graber said, noting that social media apps have settings that allow users to block people and to report unsettling or unwanted interactions. “Go through your settings and take advantage of what the social media companies will allow you to control.”
She continued, “Really teaching that to teenagers is wonderful because they want that agency, and walking them through the steps of doing that is letting them control their online experience.”
(ORLANDO, Fla.) — A federal judge in Florida has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Disney against Gov. Ron DeSantis and other state officials over the state legislature’s decision to alter the governing structure of the Reedy Creek Improvement District.
Disney had argued in the lawsuit, filed last April, that the change to the district, for which the company was the main landowner, was made in retaliation for criticism of the Parental Rights in Education Act, known by opponents as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.
The Florida Legislature voted to dissolve the former governing board of the district and create a DeSantis-appointed Central Florida Tourism Oversight District in its place. The board voided a contract made before the CFTOD was in place, according to the lawsuit.
DeSantis has been at odds with Disney since it publicly criticized a DeSantis-backed controversial Florida law that restricts content concerning sexual orientation and gender identity in grades kindergarten through third grade.
Disney, citing concerns of discrimination, had said it “should never have passed and should never have been signed into law.”
Taryn Fenske, the communications director for DeSantis, told ABC News when the lawsuit was filed, “We are unaware of any legal right that a company has to operate its own government or maintain special privileges not held by other businesses in the state.”
DeSantis and J. Alex Kelly, the secretary of Florida’s Department of Commerce, had argued a lack of standing and 11th Amendment immunity in the case, both of which Winsor agreed on, while the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District argued a lack of merit in the case.
“The clerk will enter a judgment that says, ‘This case was resolved on motions to dismiss. Plaintiff’s claims against the Governor and the Department Secretary are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims against the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board members are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim,” U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor, who was appointed by then-President Donald Trump in 2018, wrote in concluding his decision.
Winsor wrote that Disney had not shown standing to sue the governor or secretary.
“The analysis could be different if the Governor had not yet made any appointments,” Winsor wrote. “But as things stand, if this court enjoined future appointments, Disney would face the same situation it faces now: it would be operating under the CFTOD board, over which it has no control. Stopping hypothetical future appointments would not redress any alleged imminent harm.”
The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it can be brought again with proper standing.
“This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law, and it will not end here,” a Disney spokesperson said. “If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined to press forward with our case.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Federal Reserve left rates unchanged on Wednesday, delaying highly anticipated rate cuts that the central bank expects to make sometime this year.
The fed funds rate remains between 5.25% and 5.5%
“The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run,” the Fed said in a statement. “The Committee judges that the risks to achieving its employment and inflation goals are moving into better balance.”
This is the fourth meeting in a row that the Fed has not raised rates – the longest pause on the aggressive rate hiking cycle that started in March 2022.
The next opportunity for a rate move will take place at a meeting in March.
An aggressive series of rate hikes since last year has spurred an increase in borrowing costs for everything from mortgages to credit cards to auto loans. But the Fed has signaled that it plans to ease rates in response to falling inflation.
The rate decision arrives days after fresh data showed that the U.S. economy cooled in its latest quarter but performed much better than forecasters expected, boosting optimism about the nation’s prospects for averting a recession.
The resilient economic performance could relieve some pressure on the Fed to move quickly toward rate cuts.
Interest rate cuts would lower borrowing costs for consumers and businesses, potentially triggering a burst of economic activity through greater household spending and company investment.
But the Fed risks a rebound of inflation if it cuts interest rates too quickly, since stronger consumer demand could lead to an acceleration of price increases.
Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller said earlier this month that the central bank expects to cut rates this year, but it won’t be “rushed” to make the decision soon.
Deliberations at the Fed over a possible rate cut have come amid a flurry of positive indicators.
A jobs report earlier this month showed hiring in December remained robust and far surpassed expectations.
Still, inflation remains elevated. Inflation has fallen significantly from its peak of 9% last year but in recent months has encountered bumps in its path toward normal levels.
The pace of price increases stands more than a percentage point higher than the Fed’s target rate of 2%.
Those remarks helped send treasury yields soaring and major stock indexes tumbling. Since then, however, the stock market has moved steadily upward.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 38,000 for the first time last week, setting a record high. Since then, the index has ticked up more than a percentage point.
The recent surge follows a stellar showing for markets in 2023, driven in large part by optimism about the prospects for a “soft landing,” in which inflation comes down to normal levels while the economy avoids a recession.
The International Monetary Fund released a forecast on Tuesday voicing its expectation of a soft landing for the U.S. The U.S. will expand at an annual rate of 2.5% this year, the IMF said, predicting a slowdown from the previous year but an improved outlook from a prior forecast.
ABC News’ Taylor M. Dunn contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun took responsibility for a door plug getting blown out of an Alaska Airlines flight over Oregon earlier this month in the company’s fourth quarter earnings call Wednesday.
“We caused the problem,” Calhoun said.
Calhoun said that while the company reported its fourth quarter and 2023 results, “my focus is on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 and the actions we are taking as a company to earn the confidence of our customers, the confidence of our regulators and the flying public.”
“Boeing is accountable for what happened,” Calhoun said. “Whatever the specific cause of the accident might turn out to be, an event like this must simply not happen on an airplane that leaves one of our factories. We simply must be better. Our customers deserve better.”
Calhoun said he expects results from the National Transportation Safety Board investigation in “relatively short order.”
Calhoun said Boeing instituted additional quality controls and inspections, issued bulletins to suppliers to strengthen the focus on performance and reduce the risk of quality escapes, opened factories to 737 operators for additional oversight, appointed a quality adviser to conduct a comprehensive and independent review of Boeing’s commercial airplane quality management system and paused 737 production for a day “at a scale we have never done before” to address quality.
Calhoun said the company will “encourage and reward employees for speaking up.”
Boeing currently produces 38 737s per month, and the company will maintain that scale due to restrictions from the Federal Aviation Administration.
Boeing did not issue a financial outlook for 2024.
“Now is not the time for that,” Calhoun said.
Boeing made $22 billion in revenue in the fourth quarter and $77 billion in 2023, according to financial statements.
Alaska Airlines resumed flying the Boeing 737 Max 9 following fleet inspections for the first time on Friday.
(WASHINGTON) — Washington, D.C., and Wall Street will closely watch an announcement from the Federal Reserve on Wednesday about whether to shift its benchmark interest rate.
The move marks the first such decision since the Fed said last month that it expects to cut rates in 2024.
Economists expect the Fed to leave rates unchanged, delaying rate cuts until later in the year. The next opportunity for a rate move will take place at a meeting in March.
An aggressive series of rate hikes since last year has spurred an increase in borrowing costs for everything from mortgages to credit cards to auto loans. But the Fed has signaled that it plans to ease rates in response to falling inflation.
The rate decision is set to arrive days after fresh data showed that the U.S. economy cooled in its latest quarter but performed much better than forecasters expected, boosting optimism about the nation’s prospects for averting a recession.
Gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, grew at a 3.3% annual rate over the final three months of last year, according to data from the U.S. Commerce Department.
The resilient economic performance could relieve some pressure on the Fed to move quickly toward rate cuts.
Interest rate cuts would lower borrowing costs for consumers and businesses, potentially triggering a burst of economic activity through greater household spending and company investment.
But the Fed risks a rebound of inflation if it cuts interest rates too quickly, since stronger consumer demand could lead to an acceleration of price increases.
Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller said earlier this month that the central bank expects to cut rates this year, but it won’t be “rushed” to make the decision soon.
The GDP data, widely viewed as the prevailing measure of a nation’s economic health, comes amid a flurry of positive indicators.
A jobs report earlier this month showed hiring in December remained robust and far surpassed expectations.
Still, inflation remains elevated. Inflation has fallen significantly from its peak of 9% last year but in recent months has encountered bumps in its path toward normal levels.
The pace of price increases stands more than a percentage point higher than the Fed’s target rate of 2%.
Those remarks helped send treasury yields soaring and major stock indexes tumbling. Since then, however, the stock market has moved steadily upward.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 38,000 for the first time last week, setting a record high. Since then, the index has ticked up more than a percentage point.
The recent surge follows a stellar showing for markets in 2023, driven in large part by optimism about the prospects for a “soft landing,” in which inflation comes down to normal levels while the economy avoids a recession.
The International Monetary Fund released a forecast on Tuesday voicing its expectation of a soft landing for the U.S. The U.S. will expand at an annual rate of 2.5% this year, the IMF said, predicting a slowdown from the previous year but an improved outlook from a prior forecast.
(WASHINGTON) — When then-President Donald Trump falsely declared victory days after Election Night in 2020, dozens of CEOs at the nation’s top companies assembled on a Zoom call to prevent what they feared could be the end of democracy in the U.S.
As Trump stands poised to win the Republican nomination in the 2024 contest, however, some prominent chief executives appear to have softened their stance toward him.
Rattling off Trump’s policies on topics ranging from the economy to China, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon told CNBC earlier this month that Trump “wasn’t wrong about some of these critical issues.” Dimon did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Former company executives and advocacy group leaders expressed concern to ABC News about the posture toward Trump taken up by prominent CEOs in recent weeks, saying the executives appear to be prioritizing the short-term interests of their companies over the long-term health of the nation’s democracy and, in turn, a stable free market economy.
In private, many CEOs acknowledge that Trump poses a threat to democracy, but they likely remain reluctant to weigh in out of fear for an appearance of partisanship or even backlash from Trump should he become president, some of the former executives and advocacy group leaders said.
“CEOs are hedging their bets,” Tom Rogers, the founder of CNBC and an attendee at the Zoom call in November 2020, told ABC News.
“People think being on the wrong side of Trump was a bad move for individual companies. People may fear that if he is unleashed in a second term, his willingness to take on individual companies could be even more extreme,” Rogers added.
As another presidential election nears, Trump continues to deny the outcome of the previous election and vows to vigorously fight scores of felony charges, including allegations in two separate indictments of an illegal attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election outcome.
He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and has denied wrongdoing in response to all related allegations.
In recent weeks, a series of high-profile CEOs have spoken confidently about the prospects for their businesses or the country under Trump.
“The reality is, hey, we are the same company, regardless of when that election is going to occur. And regardless of who that president will be,” Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff told Bloomberg earlier this month.
Also speaking this month, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Bloomberg, “I believe America is going to be fine no matter what happens in this election.”
Benioff did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment. Neither did Altman.
Tom Glocer, the former CEO of Thomson Reuters, who also attended the November 2020 Zoom meeting, said some of the public comments from CEOs suggest that they’re “backing away.”
“It worries me,” Glocer told ABC News, citing what he considers Trump’s politicization of the judicial system and denial of the 2020 election.
“That’s bad for U.S. business,” he added.
Last year, a rating agency downgraded U.S. credit for the second time in the nation’s history. Fitch Ratings cited the ballooning U.S. debt load and a weakening of governance, as well as the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, as considerations in their decision.
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, who convened the November 2020 conference call with top CEOs, rebuked the notion that the recent remarks from chief executives about Trump suggest a shift in their posture. “None whatsoever,” Sonnenfeld told ABC News.
Business leaders do not consider it their role to weigh in on partisan issues, Sonnenfeld added, saying their willingness to defend democracy in 2020 aligns with the views expressed in recent weeks.
The former executives and advocates have also warned about overstating the alarm.
“We shouldn’t take it as the overarching or final perspective from the business community,” said Daniella Ballou-Aares, CEO and co-founder of the Leadership Now Project, a membership organization made up of business leaders concerned about the future of U.S. democracy.
Business leaders have spearheaded efforts to safeguard democracy in swing states where the election will likely be decided, Ballou-Aares added. Last week, for example, nearly 70 business leaders in Ohio signed a public letter aiming to remove politicians from the redistricting process.
Elizabeth Doty, the director of the Erb Institute’s Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce at the University of Michigan, echoed this view.
“We’ll see fewer dramatic statements but more quiet commitments,” Doty told ABC News.
For his part, Glocer said worried onlookers risk overstating the importance of statements from CEOs. Their capacity to influence public sentiment, Glocer added, pales in comparison to that of a pop superstar like Taylor Swift.
(NEW YORK) — As the 2024 tax season kicked off across the nation Monday, the Internal Revenue Service is offering some new services it says will help make filing easier for taxpayers.
The IRS is now offering Free File and Direct File for qualifying taxpayers and expanded in-person services through its Taxpayer Assistance Centers.
The new programs come after an infusion of supplemental funding provided to the IRS through the Inflation Reduction Act.
“As our transformation efforts take hold, taxpayers will continue to see marked improvement in IRS operations in the upcoming filing season,” IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said. “IRS employees are working hard to make sure that new funding is used to help taxpayers by making the process of preparing and filing taxes easier.”
Free File offers taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of $79,000 or less access to IRS-partnered tax softwares enabling them to file for free. All taxpayers are eligible to use Free File Fillable Forms, though this option does not come with as much guidance.
The Direct File option is a pilot program offering free federal tax return filing with step-by-step guidance. The 2024 season will see a phased roll out plan, so it won’t be available to all taxpayers immediately.
Only a small number of taxpayers will be able to access the program at the start of filing season, but it is expected to be more widely available by mid-March in 12 participating states: Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington state and Wyoming.
The IRA funding has also allowed the IRS to expand its in-person services. Fifty Taxpayer Assistance Centers have been opened or reopened using the funds and will be operating with expanded hours for the 2024 filing season.
For a quick and easy return, the IRS says electronic filing with direct deposit is still the best option for taxpayers, but regardless of how people file, it’s important to hold off until they’ve received all of their income-related documents.
The IRS anticipates almost 129 million individual tax returns to be filed this season.
Taxpayers living in Maine and Massachusetts have until April 17 this year to file, but most returns must be filed by the April 15, 2024, tax deadline.
(NEW YORK) — Former president Donald Trump trounced his Republican opponents in the first two primary contests, setting the course for a potential general election rematch with likely Democratic nominee President Joe Biden.
The decisive issue, according to polls, may prove to be the economy. Seventy-four percent of Americans say the economy is very important to them, making it the top concern among voters, an ABC News/Ipsos poll in November found.
Biden and Trump contrast sharply on topics that intimately affect everyday people’s finances, including taxes, jobs and trade. Neither candidates’ campaign responded to ABC News’ request for comment.
Here’s what to know about key economic proposals put forward by the rival presidential candidates:
Taxes
Biden has sought to raise taxes on wealthy people and some corporations in what he considers an effort to bring fairness to the tax code.
On the other hand, Trump appears poised to preserve or deepen tax cuts that he views as a catalyst for economic growth.
Trump is committed to extending the tax cuts signed into law during his first term when they begin to phase out in 2025, Stephen Moore, who served as an economic adviser to Trump and says he has helped shape Trump’s agenda for a possible second term, previously told ABC News.
The administration may seek to cut taxes further but details of such a proposal remain uncertain, Moore said.
“This is all in motion,” Moore added. “Nothing has been decided.”
By contrast, the Biden administration has proposed tax hikes for wealthy people and indicated a preference for allowing some of the Trump tax cuts to lapse.
For example, Biden could oversee the expiration of a 20% tax deduction for specific income generated at pass-through businesses, such as sole proprietorships, that file taxes through a personal owner. The move would effectively amount to a tax increase for those companies.
Targeting high-net worth individuals, meanwhile, Biden could impose a first-of-its kind wealth tax.
Last year, Biden proposed a 2024 tax plan that included a 25% tax on the wealth of individuals with a net worth exceeding $100 million. The plan, Biden said, would apply to 0.01% of Americans.
“I’m a capitalist, but pay your fair share,” Biden said in his State of the Union address last year.
The currently divided Congress may not pass such a tax hike but Biden could pursue it if granted a second term.
Trade
While the Biden campaign has not put forward an agenda for trade policy under a second term, his administration has so far taken up an aggressive posture toward some adversarial countries like China while reaching trade deals with others.
Biden preserved the tariffs imposed by Trump on Chinese imports, escalating the confrontation with China through additional measures, such as a ban on the export of advanced chips to the country.
On the other hand, the U.S. in recent years has reached trade agreements for some goods with neighboring countries Taiwan and Japan. In December, the Biden administration extended a suspension of Trump-era tariffs on steel and aluminum from Europe, but the White House has established a permanent agreement to do away with the levy.
For his part, Trump plans to ratchet up the confrontational trade policy instituted during his first term, promising to impose tariffs on most imported goods.
Speaking with Fox Business in August, Trump said the tax on imported items could ultimately stand at 10%.
Trump also plans to tighten constraints on China-made products, including a “4-year plan to phase out all Chinese imports of essential goods,” according to a set of proposals released in February.
Jobs and manufacturing
Both candidates tout their bonafides as job creators who nurture the growth of U.S. manufacturing. But they have carried out very different approaches to doing so.
The Trump campaign has presented its tariff policy as a means of protecting U.S. businesses, thereby ensuring a robust job market and a bolstered domestic supply chain.
“Trump wants jobs here in America,” Moore said. “He wants things made in America.”
The Biden administration, by contrast, has enacted federal legislation that brings investment to U.S. companies and in turn boosts the demand for workers.
Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago last week, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen pointed to several measures signed into law by Biden that have brought investment to projects focused on infrastructure, computer chips and clean energy.
“These investments will fuel our economic growth and increase our economic security,” Yellen said.
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm addresses Americans’ concerns about owning an electric vehicle in an interview with ABC News’ Morgan Korn. — ABC News
(NEW YORK) — You’ve seen them on the roads, at the local Walmart, maybe in your neighbor’s driveway.
Electric vehicles are proliferating across the nation, yet so many Americans still have questions about these battery-powered trucks and cars: Where do I charge them? What if I run out of range? Can I afford one?
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, a two-term governor of Michigan and longtime EV owner, recently sat down with ABC News to address the many concerns and anxieties surrounding EVs. She offered a clear message for Americans still deciding whether to buy or lease one: They’re better for the environment and your pocketbook. And building them in the U.S. will produce jobs and reduce the dependency on Chinese-made parts.
Still, Granholm said there’s work to be done to make charging more accessible around the country.
The interview below has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Q: Electric vehicles are a hot topic in Washington and around the country. Range anxiety is a real concern for drivers who are new to this technology. How do we solve this problem – is it building vehicles with more than 300 miles of range or is it putting charging stations in every town and on every highway?
A: It’s both actually. So the range anxiety issue — I totally get this. I mean, who wants to buy a car if you can’t fill it up in whatever way, right? So that’s why the Biden administration has put $7.5 billion into building out these charging stations in places where the private sector is not already going. We’ve got about 170,000 charging stations across America right now. They’re adding about 900 per week. With the money that has come from the president’s agenda … we think we’re going to get to 500,000 by 2026. And more after that.
I think it’s important for people to know that if they have a garage, they have a charging station. Just plug it in at home. I think a lot of times people who are considering buying EVs aren’t aware that is an option.
Q: Skepticism over public charging availability is the primary reason consumers reject EVs, according to J.D. Power. You personally experienced charging difficulties this summer on your EV roadshow. The Department of Transportation recently said it was granting $149 million to repair or replace non-operational EV chargers. What are you doing to hold private charging companies accountable for these offline and broken chargers?
A: First of all, that funding goes to states to make sure they identify which chargers are out and put in ones that work. We do not want to see having spent all the money to install a charger … and it not be working. Now let me just say this, we are trying to fill in all of these gaps. And we know that right now there aren’t enough chargers in the United States.
And the whole goal of the president was to add 500,000 chargers just from the public money in places where we don’t already have them. And it also means replacing those chargers that don’t work. But if you are able to park along a street and pull down a charger from a lamp post and plug it in, if you don’t have other options, if you’re able to just go to a Walmart and plug in and go shopping and come out, you can imagine that the accessibility of chargers will be more abundant than if you drive a gas-powered vehicle and have to find a gas station.
If you can charge in convenient places — at a library, at a park – you will see this range anxiety issue dropped. But I understand that it’s there right now. And that’s why we’re working very fast to get these chargers out right now.
Q: What type of chargers are we talking about? Are they Level 2? Level 3?
A: Along the freeway, we want them to be high-speed chargers. We want people to know that because of the federal funding, they will be every 50 miles, not more than one mile off of the freeway or a transportation corridor. We are very focused on fast charging so that people feel comfortable.
Also, kudos to those entities in the private sector who are actually putting electric vehicle charging stations at gas stations because they see that as an opportunity, especially if they got a snack store. If you’re charging, you might spend a little bit of time in the snack store while [the vehicles] is charging to be able to get whatever Kit Kats you need.
Q: President Biden said he’d like EVs to make up at least 50% of new vehicle sales by 2030. Last year, EVs accounted for 7% of the U.S. market. How is the administration going to accomplish this goal in six years?
A: Last year, the number of sales were 1.4 million — a record — and it was 50% more than the year before. Last year, I think, the EV revolution launched across America. This year, you’re gonna see it spread all across.
I mean, honestly, it’s not about what the president says. It’s about what people who buy an EV say. The satisfaction rate of EV owners is through the roof — like 95%. People who have driven an EV won’t go back because it’s so better. It’s so much cheaper to operate. I mean, if you fill up your average gas tank today, an average car, it’s about $49. If you charge and go that same distance, it’s about $15. If you fill up every week, that is a huge savings for your average citizen.
So just on the savings of operating an EV alone, they’ve become more affordable. I think that as people decide to replace their vehicles, EVs will become something that more people will look at once they’ve heard their neighbors say, ‘You know what, this is really great.’
Q: The Inflation Reduction Act drastically reduced the number of EVs and plug-in hybrids that were eligible for the full $7,500 federal tax credit. Moreover, the average price paid for a new EV was nearly $51,000 last year. How can middle and low-income Americans afford an EV when they’re so expensive and so few meet the revised federal tax credit requirements?
A: A couple of points on this. The reason why the types of models available was reduced was because we also want these vehicles to be made in America. There’s a great opportunity to bring back manufacturing to this country so that people can qualify for a fully American-made vehicle. And that is actually what’s happening.
We see now a build-out of these EV companies, of battery companies — it is so exciting the manufacturing revolution that has been triggered by the incentives associated with it. So right now, yes, there are fewer models. But there will be many more EV models available this year, next year.
You can get an EV tax credit for a used electric vehicle as well, which is $4,000. The dealers have all registered now to take the tax credit at the dealership, which is very, very important. You can lease an electric vehicle and you don’t need to have it all made in America. It’s a question about whether that’s a loophole or not, but the fact is, if you lease you can still qualify. So many states have tax credits on top of the federal tax credit.
If you bought a car in Maine, for example, you’d have the $7,500 tax credit and you would have another $7,500. Last year, the low-end Bolt was less than $30,000. If you have $15,000 off from state and federal tax credits, you’re now financing a $15,000 car. That is totally affordable. So there are options and many of these tax credits are all income dependent [and] geared toward middle and lower-end folks.
Q: The White House said it would provide a tax credit to help reduce the cost of home chargers. What is the White House doing to help Americans who want an EV but don’t own their home or live in urban areas?
A: This is why the funding for charging in places along the street is very important. The funding for putting charging near or at multifamily dwellings, apartments, etc, is very important. And then, of course, the funding to put charging where people normally spend a little bit of time, whether it’s at rest stops, or stores, or parks or anything like that.
We want charging to be more accessible than what it would be if you had to go fill up your tank. And let’s just say, if you have to fill up your tank, you’re not filling that up at home. And if you can ‘fill up’ your car at home, that’s a convenience that we want people to enjoy.
Q: So which pockets of the country need these chargers most? Obviously not California.
A: Well, California has got a plan. In fact, all 50 states have a plan for installing EV chargers based upon the president’s funding. But the plan is to fill up the gaps. So there are a lot of states where there isn’t a lot of EVs at all. And so those states have a plan … and they’ve gotten their funding to be able to build out these EV chargers.
You know, we’re particularly concerned about those travel corridors. And we’re particularly concerned about rural areas where there are not a lot of EVs and urban areas where people can’t afford an EV or where there just isn’t a big uptake. So those are the gaps that this funding from the National Electric Vehicle [Infrastructure] initiative is attempting to fill. And people are going to really start seeing these EV charging stations pop up in places where they have not been before.
Q: Ford and GM have both pulled back on their EV targets. Production of the Silverado EV, for example, was moved to late 2025. Ford said it was scaling back plans for an EV battery plant in Michigan and is moving workers at its F-150 Lightning plant because demand for the truck is dropping. What’s your reaction to these announcements?
A: They may have over projected where things were going to be. But this movement toward electrification, I think, is inexorable. It is happening. If you just look at the 50% increase year-over-year in EV uptake, the automaker CEOs will tell you they’re not pulling back or reversing trend in their investments. They may be slowing a little bit, but honestly, I think this is a snowball that is only going to accelerate.
Q: You’re a longtime EV owner. So when people stop you and say, ‘What’s your experience like in the Bolt or Mach-E’, what do you tell them?
A: I tell them I love it, I love it. I leased two different Chevy Bolts. Great car and it was so cheap to operate. Now, I also lease solar panels. And so I was just driving my Chevy Bolt on sunshine. But that was because I had a garage, not everyone can do it, I totally understand that. But even going to a charging station and filling up even with a fast charger is so much cheaper than operating. I love that these vehicles are so quiet. Even with a Chevy Bolt, which was, you know, not a luxury vehicle … the quietness of it makes it feel sort of like a luxury vehicle, like you’d be inside of a Cadillac or something like that, because it was so quiet.
Q: Have you experienced any of these charging anxieties that so many Americans have experienced?
A: Oh, sure, I have. We did a road trip earlier this year where we had difficulty accessing charging in the South where there wasn’t enough charging stations. That goes to the point of us really accelerating the buildout of these charging stations.
Q: Do you think electric vehicles will be a topic on the campaign trail this year?
A: It could be. All of those factories that I was talking about — building electric vehicles and electric vehicle batteries — 60% of them are going into red states. So, you know, people in red states love their EVs, too, and are working at these factories. So I think, again, I just think that over time, the political nonsense about it will die down and people’s experience will speak much more loudly.
I think it’s important, you know, for those who care about global warming, climate change, and doing their part, EVs are a solution for them. For those who care about cost, EVs are a solution for them. For those who care about power, EVs are a solution for them. I mean, people just have to get used to it and understand it.
Q: What else would you like Americans to know about electric vehicles?
A: I think people need to understand that the whole supply chain for building these electric vehicles is coming back to the United States. And there’s a lot of talk, I know, in the political space about EV batteries being made in China, etc. That’s the whole point of these tax credits — to incentivize bringing back that full supply chain in the United States. And so whereas China has had domination over batteries, and that’s true, whether it’s a gas-powered vehicle or electric vehicle, we are now bringing this back.
The Department of Energy is funding companies to fill in the gaps in the supply chain to build that full system here. And that means jobs. People are going to have jobs doing responsible extraction of minerals, they’re going to have jobs processing those critical minerals, they’re going to have jobs building the batteries — the anode, the cathode, the separator material — all of those are businesses that go into a battery. Then they’re going to have jobs assembling the battery into the vehicle.
It’s really a huge manufacturing and jobs win for the country to be able to build this ecosystem here. That, to me, is a very important benefit of the president’s agenda.
