(NEW YORK) — For anyone who marks their calendars timed to food celebrations, Taco Bell has a new date for you to highlight in October that aligns perfectly with a delicious day of the week — Taco Tuesday.
The California-based fast food chain announced Tuesday that this year, National Taco Day will fall on Oct. 1, three days earlier than in previous years, to ensure the food festivity aligns with the beloved weekly tradition of Taco Tuesday.
The permanent date change to the first Tuesday of October was set in motion by the fast food chain with the help of the National Day Calendar, the authoritative entity that curates national days, weeks, months and other tentpole events.
“For years, we’ve celebrated National Taco Day on October 4th, but it’s always felt like there was a bigger opportunity to align it with something even more special — Taco Tuesday,” Marlo Anderson, founder of National Day Calendar, said in a press release. “Thanks to Taco Bell’s efforts, we’re excited to officially move National Taco Day to the first Tuesday in October, creating the Taco Tuesday of all Taco Tuesdays.”
This marks the latest milestone in Taco Bell’s ongoing Taco Tuesday journey, which included a petition that relinquished the trademark title in all 50 states last year.
Taco Bell’s Chief Marketing Officer Taylor Montgomery said in a statement that after the brand “liberated Taco Tuesday last year … we couldn’t just stop there.”
“With National Taco Day coming up, it felt unnatural for it to not fall on a Tuesday, and as some of the biggest advocates of Taco Tuesday out there, we knew we had to help shift the holiday permanently to give taco makers and lovers the opportunity to celebrate bigger and better every year,” Montgomery said.
To celebrate the new date for National Taco Day, Taco Bell plans to host a “frenzy of Tuesday Drop celebrations” kicking off Oct. 1 that will roll out all month long.
Former President of the United States Donald J. Trump and Vice President Harris’s first Presidential Debate is displayed on a TV screen in Foster City, California, United States on September 10, 2024. (Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(PHILADELPHIA) — Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump met for the first time Tuesday in their first presidential debate of the 2024 election, hosted by ABC News.
The high-stakes, 90-minute debate was held at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center, with Trump and Harris arguing their cases for the White House.
As the Democratic and Republican nominees debated the most pressing topics facing the nation, ABC News live fact-checked their statements on the economy for answers that were exaggerated, needed more context or were false.
HARRIS CLAIM: 16 Nobel laureates say Trump’s plan would increase inflation and land us in a recession
FACT-CHECK: Mostly true
Harris correctly describes what the Nobel laureates said about inflation during Trump’s presidency: “There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation.” But while the group describes Harris’ agenda as “vastly superior” to Trump’s, their letter doesn’t specifically predict a recession by the middle of 2025. Rather, the group wrote: “We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.”
The 16 economists are George Akerlof, Angus Deaton, Claudia Goldin, Oliver Hart, Eric S. Maskin, Daniel L. McFadden, Paul R. Milgrom, Roger B. Myerson, Edmund S. Phelps, Paul M. Romer, Alvin E. Roth, William F. Sharp, Robert J. Shiller, Christopher A. Sims, Joseph Stiglitz and Robert B. Wilson.
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump wants a “20% tax on everyday goods” that would cost families “about $4,000 more a year.”
FACT-CHECK: True, but needs context
Trump has proposed a universal “10-20%” tariff on all U.S. imports, from cars and electronics to wine, food products and many other goods. He has also proposed a 60% tariff on imports from China. Vice President Harris called the plan “Trump’s sales tax,” though the former president has not explicitly proposed such a tax. Independent economists, however, say the proposed import tariffs would unquestionably result in higher prices for American consumers across the board.
The precise financial impact on families is hard to predict and estimates vary widely — from additional annual costs per household of $1,700 to nearly $4,000, depending on the study. Trump has not called for any tax hikes for American families.
He has proposed exempting Social Security benefits and tips from taxation, as well as extending individual tax cuts enacted in 2017.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said, “We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation’s history.”
FACT-CHECK: False, but it was very high
It’s true that early in Joe Biden’s presidency the annual inflation rate peaked at roughly 9% (June of 2022), but that’s not the highest it’s ever been. There are several examples of the inflation rate being much higher than 9% in the U.S, including in the immediate aftermath of World War II and during the oil embargo and shortages of the late ’70s and early 1980s, when the inflation rate peaked at 14.5%.
The inflation rate as of July 2024 is at 2.9% annual inflation, the lowest it has been in three years. It should also be noted that President Biden has falsely claimed that he inherited a high rate from his predecessor. In fact, inflation was at 1.4% when he took office.
*Data for this fact check was gathered from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, or St. Louis Fed
HARRIS CLAIM: Harris said, “Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.”
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
The unemployment rate peaked at 14.8% in April 2020 when Trump was in office — that was indeed the highest level since the Great Depression, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But unemployment rapidly declined to 6.4% in January 2021 by the time Trump left office, as the economy started to rebalance. And that 6.4% unemployment rate is still better than the 10% peak during the Great Recession in October 2009.
If you eliminate pandemic statistics, the lowest unemployment rate under Trump was just slightly higher than the lowest point under Biden. Both were good: 3.5% under Trump and 3.4% under Biden at their lowest respectively, according to data provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(NEW YORK) — A fresh inflation report on Wednesday will show whether price increases have continued a monthslong cooldown as they fall toward normal levels.
Economists expect prices to have increased 2.6% over the year ending in August. That figure would mark a notable slowdown from the year-over-year rate of 2.9% recorded in the previous month.
After six consecutive months of slowing price increases, inflation stands at its lowest level since March 2021. However, inflation remains nearly a percentage point higher than the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2%.
The new price data on Wednesday holds major implications for the course of widely expected interest rate cuts.
The chances of an interest rate cut at the Fed’s meeting next week are all but certain, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment. Market observers are divided over whether the Fed will impose its typical cut of a quarter of a percentage point, or opt for a larger half-point cut.
So far this year, the job market has slowed alongside cooling inflation. That trend was underscored last week by a weaker-than-expected jobs report, though employers added a solid 142,000 jobs. The unemployment rate has ticked up this year from 3.7% to 4.2%.
The Fed is guided by a dual mandate to keep inflation under control and maximize employment. In theory, low interest rates help stimulate economic activity and boost employment, while high interest rates slow economic performance and ease inflation.
Recent trends have shifted the Fed’s focus away from controlling inflation and toward ensuring a healthy job market.
Speaking at an annual gathering in Jackson Hole, Wyoming last month, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said the “time has come” for the Fed to adjust its interest rate policy.
At previous meetings, Powell said the Fed needed to be confident that inflation had begun moving sustainably downward to its target rate of 2% before instituting rate cuts. Last month, Powell appeared to indicate that the Fed had achieved that objective.
“My confidence has grown that inflation is on a sustainable path down to 2%,” Powell said.
Since last year, the Federal Reserve has held interest rates at their highest level in more than two decades. High borrowing costs for everything from mortgages to credit card loans have helped slow the economy and lower inflation, but the policy risks tipping the U.S. into a recession.
Last month, Goldman Sachs economists raised the probability of a U.S. recession in the next year from 15% to 25%. However, economists disagree about whether current economic conditions warrant serious concern.
Arian Simone (L) presents the Fearless Strivers New Orleans Grant onstage during the 2022 Essence Festival of Culture at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center on July 1, 2022 in New Orleans. (Paras Griffin/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Fearless Fund, a venture capitalist firm that invests in female entrepreneurs of color, has settled a discrimination lawsuit over a grant program specifically for Black women.
The lawsuit from the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) claimed that the fund’s Fearless Strivers Grant Contest, which was open “only to Black females,” was discriminatory.
The grant program was at its end when the court case began in 2023, according to an online post by Fearless Fund founder Arian Simone, and the fund said it was motivated to avoid a court ruling so as not to lead to a Supreme Court decision that could end minority-based funding nationwide.
The Fearless Fund said it will continue to focus on “helping under-resourced entrepreneurs who have been ill served by traditional capital markets for far too long.” In a statement on the settlement, it announced a new $200 million debt fund with the goal of lending to more than 3,000 under-resourced founders.
Representatives of Fearless Fund partners Simone and Ayana Parson told reporters in August 2023 that the fund was established to address the wide gap in venture capital funding for businesses led by women of color “who confront barrier after barrier to obtain support and investments for their businesses.”
The Fearless Strivers Grant Contest was created specifically for Black women because Black women-owned businesses receive less than 1% of venture capital funding, according to the organization.
AAER called the grant program “divisive and illegal” and claimed that it “encouraged the Fearless Fund to open its grant contest to Hispanic, Asian, Native American and white women but Fearless has decided instead to end it entirely.”
White women-founded companies take home 64% of “Diversity Investments” by deal count, meanwhile women of color-owned businesses only take home 10%, according to an analysis of Crunchbase data by venture capital firm BBG Ventures.
Fearless Fund partners have long defended their work, citing the poor representation of women of color among venture capital recipients and evidence of racial bias in the investment decisions of asset allocators.
“From the moment the lawsuit was filed, I pledged to stand firm in helping and empowering women of color entrepreneurs in need. I stand by that pledge today and in fact my commitment remains stronger than ever,” read a statement from the organization’s co-founder Arian Simone. “Our overarching mission remains focused on helping and empowering entrepreneurs who have been historically overlooked in the venture capital marketplace.”
AAER’s founder Edward Blum also leads the Students for Fair Admissions, the group that initiated the anti-affirmative action case that reached the Supreme Court and won the case, setting new limits on the use of race-based policies in college admissions.
The conservative group claimed that affirmative action, which was implemented to address racial inequities in access to higher education, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
