Business
Column: Renting a car from Hertz? You could wind up in jail
Tederhi Usude, a Santa Clarita dentist, rented a automobile from Hertz in June 2020 to drive to a job at a nonprofit well being clinic in rural Mendocino County. He prolonged the rental a number of instances with Hertz’s permission and paid a complete of $7,000.
Usude, 55, says that in his final dialog with a Hertz agent he defined that he was quickly quarantined due to a COVID-19 outbreak on the clinic, and would return the automobile as quickly as he was cleared to journey once more. On Dec. 18, 2020, he was on his solution to return the automobile the week earlier than Christmas — in reality, he had turned onto the very avenue the place the Hertz workplace was positioned.
That’s when his nightmare started. A police automobile flashed its lights behind him. He pulled over and was ordered out of the automobile. By then six or eight squad automobiles have been on the scene. He was informed to lie on the bottom, was handcuffed and was taken to the native jail, the place he spent the evening.
Whether or not or not Hertz knew how unhealthy this downside is when the brand new house owners purchased it, they find out about it now.
Plaintiffs’ lawyer Francis Malofiy
In response to a declaration Usude filed in court docket, an officer knowledgeable him that Hertz had reported him for theft and “embezzlement.”
When he confirmed the officer his rental settlement and an bill on his cellphone exhibiting that Hertz had billed his debit card $3,973.45 simply two days earlier, he recollects, the officer informed him, “There’s nothing I can do,” as a result of Hertz had reported the automobile stolen.
Publication
Get the newest from Michael Hiltzik
Commentary on economics and extra from a Pulitzer Prize winner.
It’s possible you’ll often obtain promotional content material from the Los Angeles Instances.
Since that day, Usude has waited to be taught whether or not his theft case will ever be prosecuted. No court docket date has been set.
Usude is in the identical boat as some 230 different Hertz prospects who say they have been falsely arrested primarily based on groundless firm theft studies. Some confronted prosecution for felonies and spent days or perhaps weeks in jail, though they’d returned their rented automobiles to Hertz and paid their payments. Their harm claims come to a complete of $690 million.
They’ve requested a chapter choose in Delaware so as to add them to the roster of collectors in Hertz’s 2019 chapter case. Though the rental firm emerged from chapter final yr, the choose continues to be contemplating the purchasers’ claims due to doubts about whether or not the corporate correctly knowledgeable them of the procedures to be named as collectors.
Their experiences often is the tip of a big iceberg. Hertz acknowledges that it information some 3,500 theft studies per yr on prospects; attorneys for the claimants say that determine applies to prospects who rented their autos legally and for which the corporate has cost data, comparable to a credit score or debit card quantity, on file.
Legal professionals for the claimants say that though it’s not unparalleled for different automobile rental firms to report autos stolen, Hertz seems to have systemic issues protecting observe of rental extensions and funds.
They are saying that when the errors within the theft studies are documented, Hertz refuses to withdraw the studies and advises the purchasers to “handle this matter by the authorized system.”
It’s doable that a few of Hertz’s issues with record-keeping and different components of its theft reporting stem from the chaos the corporate has gone by lately, culminating within the 2019 chapter.
As I reported in December, the troubles started in 2012, when the corporate paid an clearly inflated $2.3 billion for the Greenback and Thrifty rental chain. By 2017, Hertz was within the pink. Its inventory market valuation fell from $5.5 billion earlier than the Greenback/Thrifty acquisition to $1 billion by Could 2017.
Hertz misplaced a complete of $273 million in 2018 and 2019 whereas its debt soared. That weakened its means to face up to the journey hunch through the pandemic; in 2020 its loss ballooned to $1.86 billion.
Hertz additionally needed to restate its earnings from February 2012 by March 2014 to right what the Securities and Alternate Fee stated have been materials misstatements, and paid a $16-million penalty in 2019 to settle the SEC criticism.
In Could a gaggle mainly comprising two non-public fairness corporations, Knighthead Capital Administration and Certares Administration, introduced the corporate out of chapter. Among the many issues they inherited have been the claims from prospects alleging they have been improperly accused of auto theft.
A Hertz spokesman informed me that “conditions the place autos are reported to the authorities are very uncommon and occur solely after exhaustive makes an attempt to achieve the shopper.” The spokesman, Gary Koops, shifted the blame to the purchasers: “The overwhelming majority of those circumstances contain renters who have been many weeks and even months overdue returning autos and who stopped speaking with us effectively past the scheduled due date,” he stated.
There are not any indications that the corporate’s administration is addressing the problem critically; its strategy in Chapter Court docket has included arguing that the purchasers needs to be barred from gathering damages as a result of they didn’t determine themselves as collectors through the chapter.
Claimants’ attorneys contend, nevertheless, that Hertz knew the identities of a lot of the prospects when it filed its chapter petition, and may have knowledgeable them of their submitting deadline.
“Nothing has been carried out to curtail this conduct or to cease it,” says Francis Malofiy, a Pennsylvania lawyer who represents most of the prospects. “Whether or not or not Hertz knew how unhealthy this downside is when the brand new house owners purchased it, they find out about it now.”
These circumstances solid one other shadow over Hertz, which dangers turning into synonymous with atrocious customer support for other reasons. They’re additionally a humiliation for Hertz Chairman Greg O’Hara, a founding father of Certares, who serves on the board of the Innocence Venture, a nonprofit dedicated to exonerating harmless folks caught within the internet of the justice system. The Innocence Venture didn’t reply to my request for remark.
The three,500 theft studies, Koops says, quantity to a mere 0.014% of the greater than 25 million leases a yr at Hertz. Which will sound just like the outdated air trade beef about how studies on airplane crashes by no means point out all of the flights that land safely, however there are another components on this case.
For one factor, in at the very least one case Hertz was discovered to have “purged” or destroyed proof that the defendant had, as she asserted, paid for her rental in full and had spoken with Hertz representatives a dozen instances. The shopper, Pennsylvania resident Kelly Grady, was arrested in 2017 on Hertz’s allegation that she had stolen an SUV from Hertz in 2013. Grady spent 12 days in jail.
The choose at her trial instructed the jury that Hertz had destroyed Grady’s rental contract and proof of cost for her 2013 rental. Had the corporate not carried out so, the choose acknowledged, the knowledge would have “proven that Grady didn’t steal the automobile and that she had carried out nothing legal.” The jury subsequently awarded Grady $100,000 in damages.
Some regulation enforcement businesses grew to become exasperated with Hertz’s theft reporting. In 2015, safety officers at Louisville Regional Airport really helpful that the pressure droop taking stolen auto studies from the corporate “until they bodily see somebody steal an auto [or] have evidentiary proof of such.” They took that place after figuring out that Hertz had reported at the very least three autos stolen that it had been bought or scrapped.
In December, Atlanta-area prosecutors dismissed a felony theft cost in opposition to Hertz buyer Bianca DeLoach, who was arrested at gunpoint final March and spent 9 days in jail regardless of telling police that she had simply paid a Hertz invoice of $3,900 for an prolonged automobile rental. Months later, Hertz offered authorities with proof of the cost however couldn’t clarify why the automobile was reported stolen.
The prosecutors dropped the case primarily based partly on the proof of cost and “the shortage of cooperation from any consultant of Hertz Rental Automotive Firm.”
Of the 232 prospects whose claims of allegedly false theft studies by Hertz have been introduced earlier than the Chapter Court docket, 159 frolicked in jail, in accordance with their attorneys.
Some have spent months in judicial limbo, ready to see if their theft circumstances will even go to trial. Many say they have been accused of stealing their rented automobiles regardless of having acquired verbal assurances from representatives of Hertz or its subsidiaries Greenback or Thrifty that their requested extensions have been authorised; some have been arrested for driving a automobile that they’d rented legitimately however that the corporate had beforehand reported stolen.
Hertz asserted in a Chapter Court docket submitting final month that “when a automobile was not returned, [Hertz] labored diligently to get better it,” usually by making “repeated makes an attempt to contact the shopper by … telephone calls, voicemails, emails and texts.”
However boiled all the way down to its essence, the corporate’s place seems to be that these are the purchasers’ issues. In its February submitting, for instance, Hertz contended that Usude by no means “contacted Hertz relating to his declare” for the false accusation of theft.
Hertz solid doubt on Usude’s assertion that he had acquired approvals for extending his rental, dismissing them as “unspecified ‘communications.’” In the identical doc, nevertheless, the corporate acknowledged that Usude “did lengthen his rental a number of instances.”
Hertz might argue that the variety of such claims by prospects is a trivial proportion of its thousands and thousands of leases, however they’re not trivial for the purchasers themselves.
“They’re destroying folks’s lives,” Malofiy says. “In the event you’re being accused of stealing a automobile and dealing with felony prices, you possibly can’t go to court docket and get custody of your kids. You possibly can’t apply for a job. It’s a must to clarify to your boss that you just received arrested for this however you didn’t do it. You would possibly suppose, how can a worldwide company do that, however they’re.”
Business
As Art Sales Fall, Christie’s and Sotheby’s Pivot to Luxury
When art works fetch spectacular auction prices, like the record $450.3 million for Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi” in 2017, the world’s focus turns for a moment to the arcane goings-on of the international art trade. But with the market in a downturn for the last two years, there have been few attention-grabbing sales at the world’s two biggest and oldest auction houses, Sotheby’s and Christie’s.
An exception came at November’s marquee auctions of modern and contemporary art in New York, when the world’s media — and social media in particular — were momentarily enthralled by the seeming absurdity of a cryptocurrency investor spending $6.2 million at Sotheby’s for a duct-taped banana. But there is a big difference between $6.2 million and $450.3 million.
Sales at Sotheby’s and Christie’s were down for the second year in a row in 2024, according to preliminary figures released by the companies in December. With both supply and demand for big-ticket art in a slump, the auction houses are making major bets on selling luxury goods and niche experiences to make up the shortfall.
Sotheby’s estimated it would have turned over about $6 billion in auction and private sales by year-end, a decline of 24 percent on 2023. Christie’s announced projected aggregate sales of $5.7 billion, down 6 percent year-on-year. Back in 2022, Sotheby’s and Christie’s posted annual turnover of $8 billion and $8.4 billion.
“The auction houses have major problems,” said Christine Bourron, the chief executive of the London-based company Pi-eX, which analyzes art sale results. “They really need to do some thinking about how they can bring some life into their auction business. People who have an interest in art want to have an experience,” added Bourron, who, like many followers of the auction market, finds both Sotheby’s and Christie’s live and online sales increasingly predictable.
Sotheby’s is owned by the French-Israeli telecoms magnate Patrick Drahi, whose beleaguered Altice group is burdened with $60 billion of debt. Sotheby’s deteriorating performance led the auction house to reach out to Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund, A.D.Q., for a $1 billion cash-for-equity bailout and to lay off more than 100 employees in December. This followed some costly infrastructure decisions: Sotheby’s $100-million purchase of the Breuer Building in New York’s Madison Avenue, the opening of a new headquarters in Paris and the development of a futuristic exhibition and retail space in Hong Kong.
Sotheby’s website now abounds with opportunities to buy pre-owned luxury items at auction or by “instant purchase,” as if in a store, ranging from real estate, classic cars and dinosaur fossils, to smaller prestige collectibles like designer handbags, jewelry, fine wines and game-worn N.B.A. jerseys.
Josh Pullan, Sotheby’s global head of luxury, said sales of such goods draw in wealthy clients who may, in time, start to buy high-end art. “Luxury categories are for us a vital gateway for new, often younger, collectors,” he added.
Last year, luxury generated about 33 percent of sales at Sotheby’s, compared with 16 percent at Christie’s, according to the companies’ communications teams. But the category attracted more buyers than art did.
Guillaume Cerutti, the chief executive of Christie’s, spoke to reporters last month during an end-of-year media call. “Luxury has an advantage, because of the model and the price points,” he said. “Luxury and art will merge with each other,” he added, hinting at future synergies of presentation and categorization.
Christie’s is owned by the luxury goods billionaire François-Henri Pinault, whose Kering conglomerate has also been hit by flagging sales. After introducing handbag auctions back in 2014, Christie’s is now having to catch up with Sotheby’s offering of luxury items and trophy collectibles, like dinosaur skeletons. In September, Christie’s announced that it had reached an agreement to acquire the California-based classic car auctioneers Gooding & Co., setting up a rivalry with Sotheby’s car business, RM Sotheby’s, which last year turned over $887 million in classic auto sales.
“The luxury resale market presents a compelling opportunity for auction houses,” said Daniel Langer, a professor of luxury strategy at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. “Storytelling is a critical success factor in the luxury industry. Auction houses excel in this area — take the recent banana auction as an example,” he added. Sotheby’s marketing, like that of a luxury brand, had skilfully woven a narrative around the sensation that the banana sculpture, by the Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan, created when first exhibited at the Art Basel Miami Beach fair in 2019.
However, this opportunity comes with “significant challenges,” according to Langer. He pointed out that unlike luxury brands, auction houses don’t produce and price all of their own inventory; profit margins on new luxury items are often much higher than their resold equivalents; and unlike conglomerates such as LVMH and Kering, auction houses can’t scale their transactions through a network of retail outlets. These disparities between retail and resale “could limit the overall financial impact of luxury for auction houses,” he said.
Changing spending patterns among the wealthy could also affect demand.
Global sales of luxury flatlined in 2024 for the first time since 2008 (excluding 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic), according to a recent report by the management consultants Bain & Co. The report’s authors said consumers were prioritizing “experiences over products” in these uncertain times and that the luxury goods market, rather like the art market, is suffering from buyer fatigue.
“The super-wealthy in their 30s, 40s and 50s are spending their money on luxury experiences,” said Doug Woodham, a former Christie’s executive who now advises on art-related finance. “That’s money that isn’t being spent on a Matisse drawing,” he added.
“With superluxury experiences, the social cache is so much higher,” said Woodham, who pioneered handbag sales at Christie’s in 2014. “For half a million dollars I can have my 10 best friends on a lavish yacht. They will remember that more than sitting in my house with a Rothko on the wall.”
The global luxury yacht charter market grew to an all-time high of $16.3 billion in 2024, a 6 percent increase on the previous year, according to the Business Research Company. It said that growth has been driven by the popularity of “exclusive and exotic travel destinations” and the “ongoing trend towards experiential luxury.”
In September, Sotheby’s collaborated with the Marriott International hotel chain and the fashion house Alexander McQueen to offer a sealed bid auction, in which bidders can’t see the rival offers. The winner got a two-night stay one of the group’s 5-star London sites as part of an experience that the Sotheby’s website said would “transport guests to where a teenaged McQueen first learned the art of tailoring.” Also included were a five-course fine-dining meal for two, a bespoke tour of London with a private visit to the Victoria & Albert Museum and a personalized photo session with Ann Ray, a longtime McQueen collaborator. Classifying the auction as a private sale, Sotheby’s declined to reveal how much the winning bidder paid for this unique luxury experience, but the presale estimate was $12,000 to $18,000.
Could selling memories, instead of art, be the future of the auction business?
Business
Column: California employers wrap themselves in the 1st Amendment to kill a pro-worker law
It’s always heartening to see the business establishment stand up for constitutional principles.
Well, almost always. Among the exceptions is when business leaders wrap themselves in the Constitution to secure their own privileges at the expense of the public interest.
That’s the case with a curious little lawsuit the California Chamber of Commerce and California Restaurant Assn. dropped in Sacramento federal court on New Year’s Eve. Their target is Senate Bill 399, otherwise known as the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act, which was signed by Gov. Newsom on Sept. 27 and took effect on New Year’s Day.
It should be clear…that a captive-audience meeting is an extraordinary exercise and demonstration of employer power over employees.
— National Labor Relations Board
The law is straightforward. It bans “captive audience meetings,” which are those scheduled by employers to ply workers with religious, political and (especially) anti-union propaganda. Nothing in the law bars employers from holding such meetings when worker attendance is voluntary. The “captive” part, the law specifies, is when employees face “discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action” for failing to attend.
As my colleague Suhauna Hussain has reported, 10 other states have implemented similar bans. So far, they’ve survived legal challenges. Bans on captive meetings are under consideration in at least five other states. They also were outlawed by the National Labor Relations Board with a ruling on Nov. 13, overturning an anti-union policy dating from 1948. The 3-1 ruling, with the board’s Democratic members in the majority and its sole Republican in dissent, involved Amazon.com’s campaign against a union organizing drive at New York-area facilities. Amazon has said it will appeal the ruling.
Captive audience meetings are among “the most pernicious and coercive tactics an employer can use to browbeat and intimidate workers into voting against a union,” says William B. Gould IV, an emeritus professor of law at Stanford and a former chairman of the NLRB and the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board.
The NLRB’s November ruling applied to captive meetings involving unionization drives, which fall within the board’s jurisdiction. The California law goes further by bringing meetings involving political and religious matters into the mix. But the state laws and the NLRB’s ruling make the same distinctions between meetings at which attendance is voluntary, and those that workers are required to attend on pain of discipline. The first are legal, the second illegal.
Since they were seemingly blessed by the NLRB in 1948, captive audience meetings have become “a common feature” of corporate anti-union campaigns, the board observed in the Amazon case. A 2009 study of 1,004 NLRB-supervised union representation elections cited in its ruling found that captive audience meetings had been held in 89% of cases; more than half of the employers had held more than five “in the runup to an election.”
The Amazon campaign is a good example. In opposing the unionization drive, which was ultimately successful, Amazon scheduled mandatory meetings every 45 minutes, six days a week at the Staten Island, N.Y., warehouse where the drive originated. At these meetings, company representatives delivered speeches attacking unions in general and the Amazon union drive specifically.
The NLRB found that “managers personally notified employees that they were scheduled to attend, escorted them to the meetings, and scanned their ID badges to digitally record attendance.”
Amazon’s activities prompted the board to reconsider the 1948 policy, which was set forth in a case involving the boiler company Babcock & Wilcox. The board noted that the 1948 finding that captive audience meetings didn’t violate labor law was “largely unexplained” and “flawed” under the law. So it was bound to be overturned.
In its detailed analysis of the topic, the board cited numerous past board rulings and Supreme Court decisions that say that employers have the right to express their opinions about unions and unionization, but not to compel employees to listen.
“It should be clear,” the board found, “that a captive-audience meeting is an extraordinary exercise and demonstration of employer power over employees,” especially when the employees’ decisions on whether to join the union is at issue.
That brings us back to the lawsuit the Chamber and Restaurant Assn. filed in Sacramento federal court. The lawsuit asserts that any ban on mandatory meetings infringes the employers’ free-speech rights as enshrined in the 1st Amendment. (State officials haven’t yet filed a response.)
“Because of SB 399,” the plaintiffs say, “employers in California are now subject to liability, penalties, and other administrative action when they exercise their federal constitutional and statutory rights to talk to employees.”
We think the plaintiffs do protest too much, to quote Shakespeare. The California law does nothing of the kind.
“Under the bill, employers are not prevented from speaking to employees in any way on any subject, including about religious and political matters,” the AFL-CIO stated in a legal memo for the California Labor Federation, which supports the law.
It’s worth remembering that employers — notably restaurant owners — aren’t above using dubious claims to attack pro-worker initiatives. Back in June, I reported that fast food franchise owners asserted that California’s $20 minimum wage for fast food workers had cost the state 10,000 jobs in that sector, going back to September 2023, when Newsom signed the law.
I documented that the statistic was false; it was the product of a misinterpretation of government employment statistics that appeared initially in the Wall Street Journal and was repeated by UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian for an essay on the Hoover Institution website. (Hoover subsequently retracted Ohanian’s essay, which had been specifically cited by the fast food camp for a newspaper ad.)
The plaintiffs may have a stronger argument in their assertion that California’s law governing employer rights in unionization cases is preempted by federal law, namely the 1935 National Labor Relations Act.
The AFL-CIO memo argues that California, like any state, has the right to set “minimum employment standards” for workers in the state. The examples it cites, however, are matters such as child labor laws, minimum wages and occupational safety and health standards, though it also maintains that since states can bar the firing of workers for improper reasons such as race, it can bar discharges for failing to attend a mandatory meeting.
Gould, for one, thinks the plaintiffs may have a point, based on a 1959 Supreme Court ruling that gave the NLRB exclusive jurisdiction over unionization issues unless the board disavows an interest. The issue might well be headed for the Supreme Court for another look.
That might not matter if the NLRB’s decision in the Amazon case stands. But a Trump-dominated labor board, which appears to be preordained, could overturn the Amazon ruling, just as the Biden board overturned Babcock & Wilcox. That might not be the worst change in labor policy for workers as Trump succeeds Biden, who may have been the most pro-union president in history. But it won’t be good.
Business
Tax Cuts or the Border? Republicans Wrestle Over Trump’s Priorities.
Republicans are preparing to cut taxes, slash spending and slow immigration in a broad agenda that will require unifying an unruly party behind dozens of complicated policy choices.
For now, though, they are struggling with a more prosaic decision: whether to cram their policy goals into one bill or split them into two.
It is a seemingly technical question that reveals a fundamental divide among Republicans about whether to prioritize a wide-ranging crackdown on immigration or cutting taxes, previewing what could be months of intramural policy debate.
Some Republicans have argued that they should pass two bills in order to quickly push through legislation focused on immigration at the southern border, a key campaign promise for Mr. Trump and his party’s candidates. But Republicans devoted to lowering taxes have pressed for one mammoth bill to ensure that tax cuts are not left on the cutting-room floor.
President-elect Donald J. Trump met with Republican senators in Washington on Wednesday, as those lawmakers sought clarity on his preferred strategy. He has waffled between the two ideas, prolonging the dispute.
“Whether it’s one bill or two bills, it’s going to get done,” Mr. Trump told reporters after the meeting.
Republicans are planning to ram the partisan fiscal package through the Senate over the opposition of Democrats using a process called reconciliation, which allows them to steer clear of a filibuster and pass bills with a simple majority vote. But for much of this year, Republicans will be working with a one-seat majority in the House and a three-seat majority in the Senate, meaning they will need near unanimity to pass major legislation.
That has left some worried that it will be hard enough passing one bill, much less two.
“There’s serious risk in having multiple bills that have to pass to get your agenda through,” Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the majority leader, said. “When you know you’ve got a lot of people that want this first package, if you only put certain things in the first package, they can vote no on the second and you lose the whole second package. That would be devastating.”
Adding to the urgency of achieving their policy goals, Republicans are facing a political disaster should they fail to deliver. Many of the tax cuts they put into place in 2017, the last time Mr. Trump was president, expire at the end of the year. That means that taxes on most Americans could go up if Congress does not pass a tax bill this year.
Passing tax cuts can take time, though. While much of the Republican tax agenda involves continuing measures the party passed in 2017, Mr. Trump and other Republicans have floated additional ideas, including no taxes on tips and new incentives for corporations to manufacture in the United States. Ideas like that could take months to formulate into workable policy.
Then there is the gigantic cost. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that simply extending the 2017 tax cuts would cost more than $4 trillion over a decade — a price tag that would grow if other tax cuts, like Mr. Trump’s proposal to not tax overtime pay, are included.
Further complicating support for the legislation is that Republicans plan to raise the debt limit through reconciliation, another sensitive issue for fiscal hawks.
Members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus have said they would not support any legislation unless the costs it introduces are offset by spending cuts. While most Republicans support reining in federal spending, agreeing on which federal programs to slash always proves harder than expected. In an attempted workaround, Republicans have instead begun to explore ways to change Washington’s budget rules so the tax cuts are shown to cost less.
The complexity of pulling together a tax bill that can secure the necessary votes has some Republicans hoping to hold off until later in the year and first charge ahead with a smaller bill focused on immigration, energy and military issues. Republicans have not yet publicly sketched out what that bill would look like.
Proponents of that strategy argue it would deliver Mr. Trump an early political victory on immigration and treat a top Republican campaign issue with the urgency it deserves.
“The No. 1 priority is securing our border,” Representative Byron Donalds of Florida told reporters on Tuesday. “In my opinion it’s the top priority, and everything else is a close second.”
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee who will be overseeing the reconciliation process, has also pressed for a two-bill approach. “If you hold border security hostage to get tax cuts, you’re playing Russian roulette with our national security,” he said.
Republicans have looked to Mr. Trump to intervene and set a clear direction for the party. On Sunday, he wrote on social media that Congress should pass “one powerful Bill,” an apparent victory for lawmakers like Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who had championed that approach. Mr. Trump’s equivocation since then, though, has left Republicans still unsure of which strategy they should pursue.
Mr. Trump’s meeting with top Republican senators on Wednesday will be followed by a discussion with various House Republicans in Florida over the weekend.
In a sign of how politically complicated the tax cut discussion could get, one of the sessions is expected to focus on relaxing the $10,000 limit on the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT.
Republicans included the $10,000 limit in the 2017 tax law as a way to contain the cost of that legislation. But the move angered House Republicans from high-tax states like New York and New Jersey, many of whom voted against the entire 2017 tax bill as a result. Such defections are a luxury that Republican leaders can’t afford this year given their narrow majority.
G.O.P. lawmakers from New York, New Jersey and California could tank a tax bill if they are unsatisfied with how the provision is handled. They are now pushing to lift the cap as part of the party’s tax bill. Eliminating the cap entirely could add roughly $1 trillion to the price tag of the legislation.
Maneuvering ambitious policy agendas through Congress has often been a messy and time-consuming process for presidents. A Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act during Mr. Trump’s first term collapsed after more than six months of discussion.
After quickly passing pandemic relief measures in 2021 under President Biden, much of Democrats’ broader agenda was stymied for almost two years before a second party-line measure passed that was far narrower than many in the party had hoped.
This time around, Republicans will be grappling not only with a historically slim margin in the House, but also a president prone to sudden changes of heart.
“You can argue the merits of both” strategies, said Representative Jodey Arrington, a Texas Republican who leads the House Budget Committee. “He has to tell us what he wants and what he needs.”
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics7 days ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics6 days ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics5 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health4 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades