A Promise Of $1,200 Not Enough To Buy Wide Support For Republican Tax Plan
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, left, pauses while speaking during a press event with Republican leaders to discuss their tax plans on Sept. 27 in Washington, D.C.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Republicans say their tax legislation will be great for the middle class. So why is it so unpopular?
Depending on the poll, only 25 percent to 33 percent of Americans approve of the tax plan. And that means even many people who would get a tax break aren’t won over.
In pitching their tax plan to the country, Republicans say it would save the typical middle class American family between $1,200 and $1,400.
But that may not be enough to buy widespread support for this plan because not everybody gets that amount, and the House and Senate bills contain some unpopular provisions.
Dave Lewandowski, a resident of Grand Rapids, Mich., is married and has three children. He works for a company selling vitamins, water filters and other health-related products.
The family’s household income is about $90,000 and he estimates he’ll save $600 under the House plan and about $1,800 under the Senate version.
And he’d definitely be happy to get a tax cut.
“We’re receiving a bit of a benefit at a time where it really helps,” Lewandowski says. “We’re trying to pay down some debt. We’re looking forward to taking a vacation next year. This is a welcome benefit for me and my family.”
Still, when it comes to the design of the overall tax plan itself, he’s conflicted.
Lewandowski says he votes for Republicans more often than Democrats, so it’s not politics. But he says he’s not sure the balance is right with the GOP plan’s huge tax cut for corporations.
“Many people in the middle class will receive a benefit, but that benefit is going to be muted or small,” he says, “whereas the bulk of the benefit is going to be felt by corporations and the wealthy.”
According to numbers from Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee On Taxation, the wealthy and corporations do get a much bigger share of the benefits from the tax bills.
And Lewandowski doesn’t like something else about the Republican plans.
“It’s not equally applied across it,” he says. “And when you look at the fact that this is a federal, national tax reform, some people are going to be impacted a lot more than others. So I would rather it be more that all people are impacted in the same way.”
For example, the plans don’t allow people to deduct state and local income taxes — and that can make a big difference for people in higher-tax states like California, New York and New Jersey.
Ani McHugh, a high school English teacher in Delran, N.J., says the plan “essentially punishes taxpayers who are already paying more in taxes. I don’t see how that’s a fair approach or a reasonable approach.”
Ani McHugh, a high school English teacher, and her husband Patrick McHugh, a police officer, live in Delran, N.J. “I don’t see how they can say this helps middle class people in New Jersey,” Ani McHugh says of the Republican tax plan.
Courtesy of Ani McHugh
hide caption
toggle caption
Courtesy of Ani McHugh
McHugh’s husband is a police officer in the town where they live and they have two children. After checking with their tax adviser, she estimates the couple would end up paying between $3,000 and $5,000 more under the plan.
“I don’t see how they can say this helps middle class people in New Jersey,” she says.
Something else bothers her about the legislation. As a teacher, McHugh buys books for her students and other school supplies. And under at least the House tax plan, she would no longer be allowed to write those off her taxes.
“It’s just hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that corporations are getting huge tax cuts and the wealthy tax breaks, and I’m a teacher and I’m spending my own money on things that will help me teach and things that will help my students learn and I can’t write that off,” she says.
McHugh says she’s also worried that after they graduate, her students couldn’t write off student loan interest — the House bill would repeal that deduction. That would make college more expensive. Many graduate students actually see a huge tax increase under the House version.
Meanwhile she says that among the middle class people she sees around New Jersey, “everybody seems to be struggling and working harder and a lot of people have second jobs. And so when corporations get a permanent tax break and the wealthy get tax breaks and we’re paying more, yeah, that’s frustrating. … It’s infuriating.”
Multiple polls show that most Americans do not want a tax cut for the rich. That may be the biggest reason this tax overhaul is so unpopular.
A Revenue 'Trigger' Would Shoot Down Tax Cuts If Economy Doesn't Grow As Expected
Republican Senate leaders, shown here speaking to reporters after the Republican Policy Committee luncheon at the Capitol Wednesday, are finalizing details of a tax plan they hope to vote on this week.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Republicans lawmakers are considering a federal budget “trigger” that would raise taxes if proposed tax cuts don’t deliver the economic growth they have promised.
But the proposal is generating a lot of pushback from critics, especially conservatives.
The so-called trigger mechanism would be a legislative provision to rescind corporate tax cuts by as much as $350 billion if revenue targets are not met, Bloomberg News reports.
Congressional Republicans have said they expect the tax cuts to unleash a wave of economic growth, which will boost tax revenues and keep the budget deficit from increasing.
The trigger would kick in if that doesn’t happen as promised.
While few details have been released, the aim would be “to try to create a backstop or a trigger mechanism that to the extent that growth estimates that have been laid out aren’t achieved, we don’t pass on even greater debt to our children,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told Fox News on Tuesday.
But the idea is opposed by many economists, who say it could force Congress to raise taxes in the middle of an economic slowdown — which they say is exactly the wrong time to do so.
“I’m concerned that if we hit a downturn, then we could have these automatic tax increases, and that would actually make a recession worse,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group.
Lawrence Summers, who was Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, said, “You’ll deliver the economy a body blow, reducing consumption and reducing investment, just at the moment you most need to be encouraging [it].”
Summers also expressed doubt that Congress would actually implement a trigger during a recession, when the political pressure to keep taxes low would be especially strong.
“This kind of gimmick is the reason why Congress has single-digit popularity ratings,” he adds.
The trigger has also been criticized by a number of business and conservative groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the Koch brothers.
Romina Boccia, deputy director for economic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, says the trigger would leave businesses uncertain about the future, undermining the potential benefits of the tax cuts.
“Including a potential tax increase through a trigger or by any other means creates uncertainty, which will lower the overall economic growth we can expect to see from the tax plan,” Boccia said.
Several GOP senators have also expressed doubts about the trigger, including Iowa’s Charles Grassley and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. John Kennedy of Louisiana was quoted as saying he would rather “drink weed killer than vote for the thing.”
But it was not clear whether their opposition would be enough to kill the trigger, and congressional Republicans are reportedly still talking about ways to keep the idea on the table.
“We are probably going to have one but I prefer not having it,” Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch told reporters. “It depends on how the bill is written. There’s a way I would support it.”
Trump Wins Opening Round In Legal Battle Over Consumer Watchdog Agency
Mick Mulvaney speaks at a news conference after his first day as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Monday.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Updated at 6:40 p.m. ET
A federal court has denied a request for a temporary restraining order sought by an Obama-era appointee seeking to block the Trump administration from assuming control of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly is a victory for President Trump, who appointed White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to take charge of the CFPB after the resignation of its previous director, Richard Cordray.
Cordray had attempted to appoint Leandra English, the CFPB’s deputy director, as his successor. That move set the stage for a power struggle with the White House over who will run the federal agency designed to represent consumers in disputes with major financial institutions over issues such as credit cards, checking accounts and debt collections. English sued, asking a judge for an order blocking Mulvaney from taking over the CFPB while the case is adjudicated.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who spearheaded the creation of the CFPB, told Reuters earlier that she had “no doubt” there would be an appeal no matter which way Kelly ruled.
The CFPB was created in the aftermath of the financial meltdown under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. English argued that the law laid out a succession plan naming the deputy director to run the agency until the Senate approved a White House nominee.
But the administration argued that the 1998 Presidential Vacancies Reform Act granted the president the right to appoint a temporary successor.
Kelly, who is a Trump appointee, sided with the administration in rejecting the request for a temporary restraining order.
“On its face, the [Federal] Vacancies Reform Act does appear to apply” to the appointment of acting director at CFPB, said the judge.
In a statement, White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah said:
“The Administration applauds the Court’s decision, which provides further support for the President’s rightful authority to designate Director Mulvaney as Acting Director of the CFPB. It’s time for the Democrats to stop enabling this brazen political stunt by a rogue employee and allow Acting Director Mulvaney to continue the Bureau’s smooth transition into an agency that truly serves to help consumers.”
Time Inc. Sold To Meredith Corporation, Backed By Koch Brothers
Time Inc. announced on Sunday night that it had sold itself to the Meredith Corporation. It was in a deal backed by Charles G. and David H. Koch, the billionaire brothers known for using their wealth and political connections to advance conservative causes.
ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
Time, Fortune and Sports Illustrated magazines are being sold to the publisher of such titles as Better Homes and Gardens and Family Circle. The Iowa-based Meredith Corporation is set to acquire Time Inc. in a deal valued at $2.8 billion. The deal’s financing has raised eyebrows. It’s linked to the politically active Koch brothers.
NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik joins us from New York to talk more about this deal. And David, what does it mean for Time Inc. to disappear and for Time magazine to be sold like this?
DAVID FOLKENFLIK, BYLINE: Well, I think it’s a recognition of a reality, but it’s a sobering one. Time is, you know, almost a century old. Time magazine – its founder, Henry Luce, really was able to do – or insist on the idea of the 1900s as being the American century in the post-World War II era. It was a strong fixture of the center-right. But it brought, you know, news of the nation, of the world to many millions of people’s homes. And it’s no longer a defining institution as it once was in David Halberstam’s book “The Powers That Be.” It’s now, you know, going to be part of a larger magazine empire, kind of one of a number of cards in the deck.
SIEGEL: Since this is a pretty tough time for magazines, why would Meredith want Time and spend so much for it?
FOLKENFLIK: You know, I think it’s less to do with Time than some of its sister publications. Meredith owns Better Homes and Gardens, Family Circle, Shape, parenting magazines. It publishes Martha Stewart Living under a production deal.
And in the Time Inc. stable, there are these other titles – Real Simple, Cooking Light, Southern Living, InStyle and then perhaps the most famous of the bunch for this, People magazine. And that appeals to the – call it 65, 70 percent of Meredith’s current readership that are female. And Meredith boasts of having a fairly affluent readership. And I think that would fit in neatly with that. The question of whether Time magazine, whether Fortune magazine, Sports Illustrated – whether these titles, although, you know, famous, world-renowned in some ways, would fit in as neatly I think is a very open question.
SIEGEL: Let’s turn now to the Koch brothers. They’re billionaires. They’re very, very involved in conservative politics and causes. What would their role be in this, and what’s their interest in the deal?
FOLKENFLIK: So there are two schools of thought on this. Their role, as being announced by Meredith, is saying, you know, the equity they’re providing – $650 million of financing for this deal. The – Meredith is taking on billions of dollars of debt. They’re saying the Koch brothers will have no membership on the board of directors of this newly expanded Meredith Corporation, and they’ll be silent partners. They’ve been promised a dividend. So in some ways, this is, you know, being done by the venture capital arm – investment arm of the Koch brothers’ fortunes. And so in some ways, they’re willing to do something silently.
On the other hand, they are, as you say, very active in conservative and libertarian circles. They are very interested in public policy and politics. They spent just an astonishing amount of money to influence that, particularly in trying to strip away certain kinds of regulations, particularly as it pertains to things like carbon emissions and climate change, which they have very strong feelings about given their own investments.
So you can look at the Koch brothers and say they just invest in things. They are through Koch Industries. They underwrite NPR, among other entities. And they seem to have had no effect here or at the point or institution of journalism outfit. And by the same token, they have been extraordinarily powerful political players in influencing the scene. So I think you’ve got to take these promises with a grain or perhaps a mine of salt and see what plays out.
SIEGEL: That’s NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik in New York. Thank you, David.
FOLKENFLIK: You bet.
Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
Meredith Corp. Buys Time Inc. In Koch-Backed Deal
Time Inc has finalized a deal to sell itself to Meredith Corp., in a transaction valued at $2.8 billion.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Meredith Corp., owner of Better Homes & Gardens and Family Circle, has struck a deal to buy magazine publisher Time Inc, for an all-cash backed transaction of $1.84 billion, joining two vastly different media portfolios, that including the company’s debt, is valued overall at $2.8 billion.
The Iowa-based publisher, Meredith has agreed to pay $18.50 a share for Time —the New York publisher of People, Fortune and Sports Illustrated, which Meredith announced in a press release Sunday night.
“We believe this acquisition represents a transformative and financially compelling growth opportunity for Meredith Corporation,” said Meredith CEO Stephen Lacy.
It’s a long-sought-after victory for Meredith, secured in large part by a $650 million investment from Charles G. and David H. Koch, the billionaire brothers known for their politically conservative advocacy. According to The New York Times, talks of acquisition were said to be renewed earlier this month, in a third known attempt, when the Kochs agreed to back Meredith’s offer with more than $500 million in equity.
Meredith says the funds from Koch Equity Development, the Kochs’ private investment arm, will be used to finance the deal and refinance existing debt, and that “KED will not have a seat on the Meredith Board and will have no influence on Meredith’s editorial or managerial operations.”
As NPR’s David Folkenflik reported, the Kochs previously expressed interest in acquiring a handful of media properties including the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune in 2013.
Since Time Warner Inc broke off of Time as a separate company in 2014, Reuters reports, Time has struggled to gain footing amid the shrinkage of print circulation in an increasingly digital media landscape.
Reuters adds, “analysts have said that bulking up on publishing assets could give Meredith the scale required to spin off its broadcasting arm into a standalone company.”
Last year, the two media companies reached a combined revenue of $4.8 billion. Meredith said the deal was unanimously approved by their boards of directors and will close early next year. Once merged, Meredith says it will serve a readership of 135 million and paid circulation of nearly 60 million.
Leadership Dispute At Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Stirs A Legal Battle
The federal consumer watchdog acency has two acting directors — one appointed by President Trump, one appointed by outgoing Director Richard Cordray. Both say they have the law on their side. NPR’s Michel Martin speaks with former Rep. Barney Frank, whose namesake law, the Dodd-Frank Act, created the agency.
MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
We’re going to start the program hearing about a remarkable political standoff in a year that has seen many unprecedented moments. It’s a fight over who will lead an agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That’s the agency created in the aftermath of the financial crisis to protect consumers in their dealings with financial institutions – everything from credit cards to mortgages to student loans.
On Friday, the outgoing director, Richard Cordray, stepped down and appointed his chief of staff, Leandra English, to run the agency temporarily. Later Friday evening, President Trump announced that White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney would be taking over the job as acting director. The selection of Mr. Mulvaney to run the agency has alarmed consumer advocates because he has made no secret of his hostility toward the CFPB.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
MICK MULVANEY: It’s a wonderful example of how a bureaucracy will function if it has no accountability to anybody. It turns up being a joke. And that’s what the CFPB really has been in a sick, sad kind of way.
MARTIN: And President Trump tweeted today, quote, “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or CFPB has been a total disaster as run by the previous administration’s pick,” unquote. All this sets up a showdown for Monday when both Mulvaney and English are expected to show up for work. Now, the administration has defended the president’s decision, telling reporters that the White House has the power to fill top agency vacancies under the so-called Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
So for more perspective, we called one of the architects of the law which created the CFPB, the Dodd-Frank Act, to find out what lawmakers had in mind. We reached Barney Frank, former Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. And we reached him in New York. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.
BARNEY FRANK: You’re welcome.
MARTIN: So as we said, the White House says that they have the authority here. What is your perspective on this?
FRANK: Namely, that if we wanted the Vacancy Act to govern, we would not have done anything about it. Knowing that the Vacancy Act was the law, we very specifically came up with a different way of acting, and it was not an accident. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is given a great deal of autonomy. You heard Mr. Mulvaney complaining about it. He calls it a lack of accountability. What we think it is is a way to kind of prevent an agency from political pressures, which we know are going to be enormous on an agency that is challenging some of the most important financial interests in the country.
The director of the Consumer Financial Bureau is different than every other in many ways. He’s appointed or she’s appointed for a five-year term and cannot be removed by the president. So what you have here is a conscious decision to give the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau more independence from the kind of political pressures that will come because, remember, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – what it does is to protect people against kind of aggression from private interests. And we thought it was appropriate that, in that case, they be protected from being cut off at the knees politically.
MARTIN: So I understand that you don’t have a copy of the statute in front of you. But…
FRANK: No, I forgot my copy. I usually travel with one…
MARTIN: I’m sure you do.
FRANK: …But I left it at home.
MARTIN: But it is my understanding the statute creating it specifically says that the agency’s deputy director serves as acting director until a new director has been nominated. Does that conform with your memory of it?
FRANK: Yes. The statute gives the director a five-year term, and the president can’t fire him. Well, it would undermine that whole concept if anything happened to the director during that five-year term, the president got to say who replaced him. We wanted that five-year period, so we said, yes, the director gets a five-year term. And the director who designates the deputy director, in effect, can continue his or her regime after a vacancy for the rest of the five years.
MARTIN: Well, what do you think is at stake here, though? Because if everybody agrees that President Trump will get to name the successor anyway – I mean, the interim named by Mr. Cordray, who’s leaving the agency, would only serve until a successor is confirmed. The Republicans are in the majority, so it assumes that whoever the president picks will be confirmed by them. So what do you think is the importance of this fight?
FRANK: First, it is to preserve the independent principle because it may come up at some other time. If they get away with this, then maybe the next time there’s a director the president might try to fire him and say I had the right to do that.
Secondly, knowing that there is a few months, it is possible that the director could finish up some pending business. It is possible that there could be some rules set forward that would be protecting people that would be cut off right away.
MARTIN: What happens now in your view? And I am asking you for an opinion here. Does this go to the courts?
FRANK: I hope it does. The question is, how does it get there? In America, you have to have this standing to sue. Not everybody can bring a lawsuit. I can’t go to court and say, oh, judges, they’re hurting my law. Clearly, the person that we think should be the acting director could sue. She’s got a right to that. That would be the ideal way. This is a dispute about what the law means. And I would hope the administration would be willing to cooperate in getting it into court.
MARTIN: Before we let you go, I know this is a question that people ask all the time these days, but I feel I have to ask. Have you ever seen anything like this? Did you ever envision anything like this when you set up the agency – this kind of a standoff?
FRANK: First of all, I haven’t seen anything like it. But we clearly envisioned it. Look, again, this is not an accident. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is given a great deal of independence from any administration power, including, by the way, one that I might like. This is an agency whose job it is to go out and fight with the largest most powerful financial interests in America on behalf of citizens. And so, yeah, we very much envisioned an administration hostile to the notion of consumer protection trying to kill the agency.
MARTIN: That was former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. He’s the co-author of the Dodd-Frank Act which created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He was kind enough to join us from New York. Congressman Frank, thanks so much for speaking with us.
FRANK: Sure.
Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
Trump Names His Budget Chief As Interim Head Of Consumer Protection Agency
Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management on Friday was named acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Before resigning as director of the CFPB earlier in the day, Richard Cordray named his own interim successor.
Astrid Riecken/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Astrid Riecken/Getty Images
Updated at 10:03 p.m. ET.
President Trump on Friday announced that Mick Mulvaney would become acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, hours after outgoing director Richard Cordray tapped his own interim successor.
Earlier Friday, the CFPB announced that Cordray had named Leandra English, the agency’s chief of staff, as deputy director to take over the bureau.
Cordray, who announced he would be stepping down by the end of November, officially tendered his resignation on Friday. “It has been one of the great joys of my life to have had the opportunity to serve as the first director of the Consumer Bureau for the past six years,” he wrote in a letter to Trump.
The White House said in a statement that Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, will serve as acting director until a permanent director is nominated and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
“The President looks forward to seeing Director Mulvaney take a common sense approach to leading the CFPB’s dedicated staff, an approach that will empower consumers to make their own financial decisions and facilitate investment in our communities,” the White House said.
But Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who helped craete the CFPB, tweeted Friday night that under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the agency’s deputy director “becomes acting director. @realDonaldTrump can’t override that.”
The Dodd-Frank Act is clear: if there is a @CFPB Director vacancy, the Deputy Director becomes Acting Director. @realDonaldTrump can’t override that. pic.twitter.com/r949ccaJAb
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) November 25, 2017
Cordray, who has been a tough regulator of banks and other financial institutions, has been a frequent target of Republican lawmakers. In April, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, called for Cordray to be fired.
The CFPB ordered Wells Fargo to pay $185 million in fines and penalties for secretly opening accounts that had not been authorized by customers.
“We have returned almost $12 billion to more than 30 million consumers who had been cheated or mistreated by banks or other large financial companies,” Cordray wrote in his resignation letter.
Trump Wine: Local Promotion Or Presidential Product Placement?
Trump brand wine is seen inside the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas on February 23, 2016.
Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images
President Trump has never been shy about promoting his businesses.
Even at a press conference after the racially tinged violence in Charlottesville, Va., he paused for a product placement:
“Charlottesville is a great place that’s been very badly hurt over the last couple of days. I own, I own actually one of the largest wineries in the United States. It’s in Charlottesville.”
It’s not one of the largest, although Trump’s 2017 financial disclosure statement put its value between $11 million and $52 million. But its bottles were on the racks of a gift shop at Shenandoah National Park, about midway between Charlottesville and Washington, D.C.
Some visitors saw the wine there last summer. They told one of their colleagues at the Center for Biological Diversity in D.C. The colleague is Bill Snape, a lawyer at the center.
“They had been at Shenandoah National Park, and seen a lot of Trump wine,” Snape told NPR. He drove down to see for himself, also to do some camping and birding.
“Y’know, I’m not going to drive out just to see Trump wine,” he said.
The wine was indeed there, but he didn’t buy any. Instead, he filed a Freedom Of Information Act request this week, seeking Interior Department records on wine sales at national parks.
This episode was first reported by E & E News, a news service that covers energy and environmental issues.
The National Park Service explained in a statement that, while it authorizes categories of products to sell, the contractors who run the gift shops get to choose the brands. Delaware North, the contractor at Shenandoah National Park, said Trump Wines was sold as a local brand before Delaware North dropped it in September.
Snape pointed out that Virginia has scores of other wineries that don’t raise questions of influence.
“There are so many different wines you could pick from Virginia to sell at Shenandoah National Park,” he said. “The fact that Trump wine is there raises a lot of questions.”
The White House declined NPR’s request for comment.
Former White House ethics counsel Richard Painter — now on the board of watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is involved in two corruption suits against Trump — said the gift shop contracts seem OK, but the larger context is troubling.
He said, “The Trump administration has sent the message that the promotion of the Trump brand name is critically important to the president.”
Retailers To Online Shoppers: Be Patient With Delivery, Get Perks
Rewarding customers when they choose slower shipping options is one way online retailers are reacting to a recent decision by UPS to add a holiday surcharge during peak delivery days.
David Goldman/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
David Goldman/AP
After UPS announced that it would enact surcharges during peak holiday delivery times, online retailers have been considering their options carefully.
Now a few have arrived on a solution: Give that gift a few more days to arrive, and we’ll reward you!
As the Wall Street Journal reports, at least a few large purveyors are doling out perks to customers who can handle the idea of it taking a day or two extra for their package to arrive.
Macy’s Inc. offers shoppers “Macy’s Money,” if they choose the “no hurry shipping” option at check out, according to the Journal’s report. And the online coupon community is already talking about how to make hay.
One blogger instructs shoppers to choose a small clearance item or two totaling $5, choose the “no hurry shipping.” The result, the blogger claims, $5 in Macy’s Money, amounting to a free transaction. NPR could not verify this saver’s strategy.
Amazon has also committed to a similar “no rush” option and benefits, the Journal also reports.
As NPR’s Doreen McCallister reported at the time of UPS’s June 19 announcement, the surcharge won’t hit retailers every day of the holiday shopping season.
“Between Nov. 19 and Dec. 2 this year, UPS says it will add a 27-cent charge on all ground packages sent to homes. Those dates include Black Friday, which is Nov. 24, and Cyber Monday, which is Nov. 27.
“Consumers then get a two-week reprieve from the additional charge, but the fee makes a comeback to usher in the final holiday rush.”
Dawn Wotapka, a public relations manager at UPS, told NPR, the decision to increase cost during peak delivery season is not necessarily a money-making move for the company.
“This is designed to help smooth out the network,” Wotapka said. “What’s happened in the past, there’s been this surge of packages all at once. It isn’t the best thing for our customers, and it isn’t the best for our network.”
UPS’s chart displays the surcharges by date.
With permission of UPS
hide caption
toggle caption
UPS says it plans to deliver an estimated 750 million packages between Thanksgiving and New Years Eve this year – 30 million a day on the busiest shipping days. Wotapka notes that’s an expected 5 percent increase in total packages shipped this holiday season compared to last year’s.
It’s worth noting that theJournalalso reports that neither Fedex nor the United States Postal Service have added peak delivery surcharges this season.
And while the Two-Way can’t officially endorse any holiday shopping strategy, it can offer this warning: Those annoyingly early shoppers in your family might be a bit more smug around the Thanksgiving dinner table this year.
Uber Data On 57 Million People Stolen In Massive Hack
Uber headquarters in San Francisco. The company acknowledged that the personal information of 57 million customers and drivers was hacked last year.
Eric Risberg/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Eric Risberg/AP
The ride-hailing service Uber revealed that the personal information of 57 million people, customers and drivers, was hacked last year and that the company kept the massive theft secret for more than a year.
Uber also paid the hackers $100,000 to delete the stolen data and stay silent about it.
The hack, first reported by Bloomberg, was confirmed in a blog post by Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. He said in 2016 the hackers obtained the names, email addresses and mobile phone numbers of 57 million Uber users. The driver’s licenses of about 600,000 Uber drivers in the US also were stolen.
Khosrowshahi said the company’s outside forensics experts see no evidence that the hackers got access to Uber users’ trip location history, credit card numbers, bank accounts, Social Security numbers or dates of birth.
The CEO said that he had “recently learned” of the massive hack, but he wasn’t more specific about what he knew and when.
A source close to the company confirmed to NPR that Uber officials paid hackers $100,000 to delete the data and keep the breach secret. The source also said that chief security officer Joe Sullivan and one of his lieutenants were terminated this week.
However, Uber declined to confirm how they knew that the data was, in fact, deleted by the hackers.
As NPR’s Aarti Shahani reported on All Things Considered, the out-going chief security officer Sullivan is the apparent mastermind of the cover up.
“He’s a former federal prosecutor — a former public servant — and he had an interesting approach to his job. For example, he felt it was OK for Uber to start using the sensors on drivers’ smartphones to track how they drive, how they perform on the job — even though many drivers were not aware of this practice and didn’t like it. Turns out he didn’t feel an obligation to disclose to them their data was taken either.”
In his post, Khosroshahi said that Uber is contacting all of the drivers whose drivers’ license numbers were downloaded and providing them with free credit monitoring and identity theft protection.
He also concluded with a contrite tone:
“None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it. While I can’t erase the past, I can commit on behalf of every Uber employee that we will learn from our mistakes. We are changing the way we do business, putting integrity at the core of every decision we make and working hard to earn the trust of our customers.”
