Daniel Hornung

Health insurance premiums going up by ~25% in 2026 is going to be a major economic and political problem. And there is no real attempt from the Administration to do anything about it. wsj.com/health/healthc…

This does not strike me as a good CPI print. A spike in goods as well as non-housing services, masked by a lower shelter print, the lowest in a while. It's just one month, the data is volatile, but this is a clear win for the Fed having paused rate cuts. /1

Last week, California passed a landmark law exempting many infill housing developments from CEQA. Here’s how we can do the same thing on a national level, exempting urban infill housing from NEPA.

Another stunning data point on the economic incoherence of this bill: By 2033, it would reduce incomes for the bottom 60% (!!) of the country -- households under $115k per year -- because of the large cuts to Medicaid/SNAP, and higher debt raising interest rates/reducing growth

What will the Senate bill mean for health coverage? We don’t yet have final CBO estimates, but it’s clear they’ll be pretty similar to the House bill. That puts the U.S. on track for an unprecedented increase in the uninsured rate that will wipe out ~3/4 of post-2013 declines.

🚨🚨🚨17 million projected to lose health insurance, @yabutaleb7 reports

Lot of all-nighter stories. Some substance: Incomes fall for bottom 40% from largest low-income program cut in history 17 million lose healthcare, undoing majority of ACA gains Hit to U.S. competitiveness/clean energy History's largest debt increase from high-end tax cuts

It’s worth repeating that this bill will effectively dismantle Obamacare. If they pass this bill & health insurance premiums across America go up next year, it’s Republican politicians in Washington who will be responsible.

A few highlights from this midnight release: (1) Deficits up by $3.3 trillion (~$4 w/ interest). (2) 16.9 million people lose health insurance (11.8 million +5.1 from other policies). (3) Likely reduces incomes for low- and middle-income households by more than House bill.

This debate is increasingly becoming about health care cuts: whether to take the House approach (16 million lose coverage) or go further, as some Senators favor. Can't be the economic message the Administration wants, to get the bill across the line or looking ahead to 2026/2008.

It is a pretty stunning statement of our political and media environment that a senator gave his colleagues this flyer on the negative impact of his own party's signature bill, the impacts have gotten relatively little coverage, and that senator will likely vote for the bill.

This is a question that @pulte and others in the Trump Administration should answer. My answer: cutting the federal funds rate by 100 basis points could have little or no effect on mortgage rates -- or could even raise them if the market thought the Fed was no longer independent.

On an apples-to-apples basis (current law), the Senate GOP tax bill costs $4.2 trillion, $403 billion more than the House. However, the Senate has fewer (still some) "temporary" measures. Take that into account, and it's more expensive, but the House is EVEN more expensive.

The two-step here is: (1) Enact large Medicaid cuts that cause millions to lose coverage and rural hospitals to close (2) Create a stabilization fund to bail out those hospitals Just spitballing but there might be a better way to protect rural patients and hospitals...

Hugely important analysis: if enacted, this would be the first bill in the modern era to make low-income people substantially worse off, while making high-income people substantially better off. And it would pass as Trump/the GOP sell themselves as the party of the working class.

Striking that by the time the temporary provisions expire, it's not just the bottom 30% of the country that is made worse off by this bill -- the full bottom 50% is made worse off, while the highest-income households continue to see very large tax cuts.

Great to join @cnni yesterday. Tariff impacts are beginning to show up in some categories of the data. They will likely more dramatically raise prices, slow investment/hiring, or both this summer -- unless the Administration moves more quickly to lower tariff rates.

President Trump is far from the only person who makes this error frequently, but the federal government (and most households/businesses) don't borrow at the Fed-set overnight rate. The average maturity on U.S. debt is 5-6 years, meaning the rate is set by the market, not the Fed.

THREAD: Markets are waking up to a provision buried in the House bill that could undermine the demand for US Treasuries at a time when bond markets are already jittery: ft.com/content/b40000… bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

Joined @BloombergTV to talk tariffs, taxes, and economic news from this week. Tariff uncertainty has returned, and the combination of highly regressive and highly fiscally irresponsible tax legislation could make it harder to weather the storm of a tariff-induced slowdown.