Connect with us

Economics

The election in Georgia could be as pivotal as it was four years ago

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

In 2020 no other state produced as much election drama as Georgia. In the end it gave Democrats slender victories that helped them win both the White House and a majority in the Senate, though not before Donald Trump, unsuccessfully, implored Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes”, the number needed to overturn the swing state’s results in his favour. In 2024 Georgia will again find itself taking centre stage—for three reasons.

The first is Mr Trump. After a big win in Iowa, the former president looks as politically robust as ever. Though his legal woes have not alienated Republican voters (rather the reverse), they could yet cause him trouble, not least in Georgia. Last August a grand jury indicted him for running a criminal ring that conspired to overturn the state’s 2020 election. Unlike in the federal cases pending in Washington and Florida, if re-elected Mr Trump could not pardon himself from the Georgia charges (though, according to long-standing policy, he would have immunity while in the White House). Nor could Brian Kemp, the state’s Republican governor, nix them.

But the case has taken an unexpected turn. On January 8th Fani Willis, the district attorney prosecuting Mr Trump, was accused by one of his co-defendants of having a fling with a special prosecutor she hired. Though the salacious claim is unlikely to disqualify her from litigation, it opens her to allegations of corruption (Ms Willis denies acting improperly in hiring him). Her foes are calling for her to go. That plot twist is unlikely to be the last.

Second, there is the matter of election security. Though Georgia is not home to the country’s loudest election-deniers—its Republican statewide politicians have staunchly asserted that its contests have been fair—fierce debates over election safety are playing out in the courts. A case that has been dragging on for over six years is reaching its end. An Obama-appointed judge will decide in the coming weeks if Georgia must scrap its electronic voting machines. Left-wing plaintiffs argue that the touchscreen ballot-markers are eminently hackable and make paper audits impossible. They point to a breach in Coffee County, where Trump allies copied election software from a rural polling station in January 2021, as proof that bad actors have all they need to do damage in 2024.

Good on paper

To the dismay of the cyber-security professors making the case for a switch to hand-marked paper ballots, Georgia’s most infamous conspiracy-theorists have taken their side. During opening statements the courtroom was packed with Trump apostles keen to tell your correspondent about the counterfeit ballots that flipped elections past. The office of Mr Raffensperger, the defendant, says it refuses to negotiate with election-deniers of left or right, noting that the trial is sowing unsubstantiated distrust of the state’s elections.

On 11 criteria for “fair, accessible, secure and transparent” elections—including, for example, whether a state has early voting and conducts audits—the Bipartisan Policy Centre, a think-tank based in Washington, DC, ranks Georgia best in the country (tied with Colorado). Even some who do not see it that way reckon it is too late to change the voting system before November. “It would cause mayhem,” says Cianti Stewart-Reid, the head of Fair Fight Action, a voting group started by Stacey Abrams, a Democrat who ran for governor in 2018. The case plants the seeds for fights over the validity of the results in November.

Third, voting rights: Georgia’s increasingly diverse electorate makes the state a laboratory for the demographic changes expected across America—and the fights over voter access that come with them. That has catalysed a movement to get unlikely voters registered and to persuade national campaigns to invest in Georgia. The Abrams machine spent $400m doing so in the decade to 2022. But since 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down the pre-clearance regime that gave the federal government authority to monitor election rules in places with historical injustices, Georgia’s Republicans have also been tightening voting laws.

After Joe Biden won Georgia in 2020 the legislature passed SB202, a bill that, among other things, made it illegal to pass out water and snacks to those queuing to vote and allowed individual citizens to challenge the voter registrations of neighbours they suspect are unlawfully registered. Though the law has had a more muted effect than some expected, it has forced Democrats into new battles. According to ProPublica, an investigative outlet, in two years nearly 100,000 registrations were challenged (oddly, 89,000 challenges were filed by just six people). Those who fail to respond to the notices can get kicked off the rolls. In early January Democrats lost in court to True the Vote, a conservative group leading the challenge crusade. Following the decision, its leaders announced the launch of new automated mass-challenge software.

All this amounts to the most dynamic political tug-of-war outside the capital. “Without a doubt there was some sore-loser politics involved, but SB202 addressed real issues as well,” says a Republican who took part in its deliberations. The handful of Georgia judges making decisions on the Trump trial, election security and voting-rights cases have the hard task of distinguishing between political high-jinks and good-faith arguments. Their rulings will matter for all Americans. 

Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter examining the state of American democracy, and read other articles about the elections of 2024.

Economics

The low-end consumer is about to feel the pinch as Trump restarts student loan collections

Published

on

Andersen Ross Photography Inc | Digitalvision | Getty Images

Wall Street is warning that the U.S. Department of Education’s crack down on student loan repayments may take billions of dollars out of consumers’ pockets and hit low income Americans particularly hard.

The department has restarted collections on defaulted student loans under President Donald Trump this month. For first time in around five years, borrowers who haven’t kept up with their bills could see their wages taken or face other punishments.

Using a range of interest rates and lengths of repayment plans, JPMorgan estimated that disposable personal income could be collectively cut by between $3.1 billion and $8.5 billion every month due to collections, according to Murat Tasci, senior U.S. economist at the bank and a Cleveland Federal Reserve alum.

If that all surfaced in one quarter, collections on defaulted and seriously delinquent loans alone would slash between 0.7% and 1.8% from disposable personal income year-over-year, he said.

This policy change may strain consumers who are already stressed out by Trump’s tariff plan and high prices from years of runaway inflation. These factors can help explain why closely followed consumer sentiment data compiled by the University of Michigan has been hitting some of its lowest levels in its seven-decade history in the past two months.

“You have a number of these pressure points rising,” said Jeffrey Roach, chief economist at LPL Financial. “Perhaps in aggregate, it’s enough to quash some of these spending numbers.”

Bank of America said this push to collect could particularly weigh on groups that are on more precarious financial footing. “We believe resumption of student loan payments will have knock-on effects on broader consumer finances, most especially for the subprime consumer segment,” Bank of America analyst Mihir Bhatia wrote to clients.

Economic impact

Student loans account for just 9% of all outstanding consumer debt, according to Bank of America. But when excluding mortgages, that share shoots up to 30%.

Total outstanding student loan debt sat at $1.6 trillion at the end of March, an increase of half a trillion dollars in the last decade.

The New York Fed estimates that nearly one of every four borrowers required to make payments are currently behind. When the federal government began reporting loans as delinquent in the first quarter of this year, the share of debt holders in this boat jumped up to 8% from around 0.5% in the prior three-month period.

To be sure, delinquency is not the same thing as default. Delinquency refers to any loan with a past-due payment, while defaulting is more specific and tied to not making a delayed payment with a period of time set by the provider. The latter is considered more serious and carries consequences such as wage garnishment. If seriously delinquent borrowers also defaulted, JPMorgan projected that almost 25% of all student loans would be in the latter category.

JPMorgan’s Tasci pointed out that not all borrowers have wages or Social Security earnings to take, which can mitigate the firm’s total estimates. Some borrowers may resume payments with collections beginning, though Tasci noted that would likely also eat into discretionary spending.

Trump’s promise to reduce taxes on overtime and tips, if successful, could also help erase some effects of wage garnishment on poorer Americans.

Still, the expected hit to discretionary income is worrisome as Wall Street wonders if the economy can skirt a recession. Much hope has been placed on the ability of consumers to keep spending even if higher tariffs push product prices higher or if the labor market weakens.

LPL’s Roach sees this as less of an issue. He said the postpandemic economy has largely been propped up by high-income earners, who have done the bulk of the spending. This means the tide-change for student loan holders may not hurt the macroeconomic picture too much, he said.

“It’s hard to say if there’s a consensus view on this yet,” Roach said. “But I would say the student loan story is not as important as perhaps some of the other stories, just because those who hold student loans are not necessarily the drivers of the overall economy.”

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Economics

Consumer sentiment falls in May as Americans’ inflation expectations jump after tariffs

Published

on

A woman walks in an aisle of a Walmart supermarket in Houston, Texas, on May 15, 2025.

Ronaldo Schemidt | Afp | Getty Images

U.S. consumers are becoming increasingly worried that tariffs will lead to higher inflation, according to a University of Michigan survey released Friday.

The index of consumer sentiment dropped to 50.8, down from 52.2 in April, in the preliminary reading for May. That is the second-lowest reading on record, behind June 2022.

The outlook for price changes also moved in the wrong direction. Year-ahead inflation expectations rose to 7.3% from 6.5% last month, while long-term inflation expectations ticked up to 4.6% from 4.4%.

However, the majority of the survey was completed before the U.S. and China announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs between the two countries. The trade situation appears to be a key factor weighing on consumer sentiment.

“Tariffs were spontaneously mentioned by nearly three-quarters of consumers, up from almost 60% in April; uncertainty over trade policy continues to dominate consumers’ thinking about the economy,” Surveys of Consumers director Joanne Hsu said in the release.

Inflation expectations are closely watched by investors and policymakers. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has said the central bank wants to make sure long-term inflation expectations do not rise because of tariffs before resuming rate cuts.

A final consumer sentiment index for the month is slated to be released on May 30, and will likely be closely watched to see if the tariff pause led to an improvement in sentiment.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

Economics

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon says recession is still on the table for U.S.

Published

on

Jamie Dimon, chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co., speaks during the 2025 National Retirement Summit in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, March 12, 2025.

Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Wall Street titan Jamie Dimon said Thursday that a recession is still a serious possibility for the United States, even after the recent rollback of tariffs on China.

“If there’s a recession, I don’t know how big it will be or how long it will last. Hopefully we’ll avoid it, but I wouldn’t take it off the table at this point,” the JPMorgan Chase CEO said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

Specifically, Dimon said he would defer to his bank’s economists, who put recession odds at close to a toss-up. Michael Feroli, the firm’s chief U.S. economist, said in a note to clients on Tuesday that the recession outlook is “still elevated, but now below 50%.”

Dimon’s comments come less than a week after the U.S. and China announced that they were sharply reducing tariffs on one another for 90 days. The U.S. has also implemented a 90-day pause for many tariffs on other nations.

Thursday’s comments mark a change for Dimon, who said last month before the China truce that a recession was likely.

He also said there is still “uncertainty” on the tariff front but the pauses are a positive for the economy and market.

“I think the right thing to do is to back off some of that stuff and engage in conversation,” Dimon said.

However, even with the tariff pauses, the import taxes on goods entering the United States are now sharply higher than they were last year and could cause economic damage, according to Dimon.

“Even at this level, you see people holding back on investment and thinking through what they want to do,” Dimon said.

— CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed reporting.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Trending