Thirty years ago, I spent some time as the unpaid Executive Director of an organization named Harvard Radcliffe Alumni and Alumnae Against Apartheid, HRAAAA, or Hurrah as we liked to call it. Our goal, never realized of course, was to get Harvard to sell its shares in companies doing business in South Africa. This would have no material effect either on Harvard or on South Africa, but as I discovered in later years the psychological effect in South Africa of such divestment efforts was considerable and contributed to the eventual downfall of that system. The Harvard Development Office, the real beating heart of the institution, was, needless to say, a complicated bureaucratic operation staffed by large numbers of low level secretaries, fundraisers, researchers, and other faceless personnel, some of whom were secretly sympathetic to our cause. One of those nameless functionaries, one night, hit the “print” button on the old-fashioned computers then being used and printed out a complete list of all of Harvard’s prime donation targets, organized not alphabetically but in descending order of the amount of money Harvard calculated it could raise from each individual lifetime. The database included useful comments from the fundraisers which could be employed in tapping their prospects. My favorite listing was “Leonard Bernstein – probable lifetime donation $500,000 – will only speak to the president.” This experience did us no good since there was no way we could think of to use the information we had come by illicitly but it taught me something I had not learned from Max Weber about the way bureaucracies function.
This morning I read online a long detailed bombshell story
from the New York Times on 20 years of Trump tax returns that they had
obtained. Needless to say, the Times does not reveal its sources but I had the
feeling that somewhere in the bowels of the IRS or some other bureaucratic
institution was a sympathetic anti-Trumper who hit the download button and
transferred all of those records onto a thumb drive which he or she brought
home and sent on to the Times.
As many of you will already have learned even if you have
not read the story, the big take away revelation is “$750.” That is the amount
of personal income tax that Trump paid in 2016 and again in 2017. Trump also
paid nothing at all in 10 of the 15 years before then but somehow the number “$750”
carries more punch. (In 2016, the Bidens
paid $93,229. If the Biden campaign can’t
make something out of that, they should be convicted of political malpractice.)
What can I say about the entire detailed story which runs on
for many pages? As I’m sure you have guessed, it reminds me of The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoyevsky’s
great novel, as you all know, focuses on the doings of Feodor Dostoyevsky and
his three sons, Alyosha, Dimitri, and Ivan. But – and I trust I am not ruining
the novel for anyone by saying this – in the end it turns out to be the bastard
son Smerdyakov who kills the old man. This sad sack of a character actually
takes seriously what Ivan has learned from Western European intellectuals and
is spouting here and there, but because he lacks soul, which Ivan possesses, he does not understand
when to believe it and when to just wink at it.
Well, the New York Times story reveals that Trump has for
decades made use of all the tax breaks and gimmicks that those big time
Manhattan real estate moguls got written into the tax law, only like any other
mob boss Trump stepped over the line again and again in ways that will leave
them open to prosecution once he is finally out of the Oval Office. He really
is the Smerdyakov of the New York real estate world.
Will this help in the effort to get rid of Trump? It can’t
hurt. I know he isn’t going to do it, but I would love to see Biden start the
debate Tuesday evening by simply intoning the words “seven hundred fifty dollars.”
19 comments:
Bombshell? It's the same tactics used by just about anyone in that income bracket who can afford all the legal and accounting fees. Can't believe anyone would really be surprised by this...
https://youtu.be/SjbPi00k_ME
Well, I hope you were joking with that last line. I can't figure out why people are treating this like such a big story (like Anonymous, above). Trump literally bragged about this during the 2016 campaign. Everyone who's voting for him long ago made their peace with behavior like this (and much worse). So I can think of quite a few things I'd rather Biden started out the debate intoning. "200,000 dead," perhaps.
On the doings of Fyodor Karamazov rather than of Dostoevsky, I assume.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with previous commenters.
I come from a line of solidly middle class, moderate Democrats who all think it is absolutely their duty to pay as little tax as possible to any government entity, while simultaneously supporting many government programs. I think striving to pay as little tax as possible is the attitude of most Americans.
To quote my field, Trump paying such a small amount for taxes is "a feature, not a bug".
Ditto for me. This is not news. It won't move the dial. As you pointed out a few blogs ago, the corporate media investigators are terrible. Were any of them worth their salt they would go after all the billionaire owners of the Dem party and show the same thing. Some of them are, no doubt, wedded to the FIRE economy (finance, insurance, and real estate sectors) who are quite please with Trump's tax cuts for same.
When it comes to shocking exposés, Dem elites (war crimes in Yemen, open-air prison in Palestine, expansion of NATO in surrounding Russia despite GHWB and Clinton's promises to the contrary - lies about the war in Afghanistan, failure to push hard for a COVID stimulus) are in bed with Repub elites. For example: just as Kavanaugh was confirmed, angry Dems were going to impeach Kavanaugh on his multiple instances of lying under oath. Well, no time like the present.
Biden could say, "How are you going to cover the $300,000,000 in debt coming due if your losses wipe out your income year after year?" The premise of the question could be false on the kind of technicality most of the American public could be relied upon not to understand. Are regular commenters certain the Biden campaign cannot make effective use of the story?
This is a big nothing burger. Someone has been watching too much CNN.
Remember all these tax laws that enables a billionaire to get off paying just $750 were written in part by democrats. I can think of many from NY, CT, and other blue states but the one that comes to mind vividly is one senator who would not budge even after we presented evidence of fraud is Joe Lieberman.
The big story for me was not that Trump's accountants have taken advantage of the tax system to avoid paying taxes. It's not even that Trump is guilty of tax fraud.
Before the NYT article yesterday, I understood that Trump was carrying a lot of debt and that he was using the presidency to improve his financial situation. What I didn't realize was how much debt he was carrying and how dire his financial situation might be. If Trump loses the presidency, he appears to be headed for financial collapse and bankruptcy--at a time when he'll be facing a whole slew of charges, even if he resigns in early January and Pence, President for about two weeks, pardons him.
In other words, the article gives us tangible reasons for Trump's desperation to stay in power. His words and actions already revealed his desperation. Now we have a better idea of why he is desperate.
That has a rather late Roman Republic ring to it - makes Trump sound like Catiline.
David,
You got it right, I believe.
Rather than aiming at imposing a fascist dictatorship, Trump is a low-class crook (the Corleones had more class) who will not budge from the White House unless he and his family receive a complete pardon and not just from Pence, but also a promise of pardon from future president Biden. I don't know that much about how U.S. law functions, but he'd need a pardon on a state level too, I imagine and that would have be worked out.
Otherwise, the situation is going to get very ugly and violent because Trump will call on rightwing militas to protect him.
I think a lot can be made of this. The taxable income that corresponds to a $750 tax is $18,000. Tuition at his son's private school is $44,000 per year. There is a lot here that could show that Trump is a crook. To the extent that he isn't a crook, but just a a good manipulator of the tax code, it will be loaded with examples that will show Joe Sixpack how he's getting screwed. That would help the Democrats increase taxes if they get the President-Senate-House trifecta.
I'm encouraged also by the statement issued by Biden;s deputy campaign manager in response to Trump's demand that the candidates have a drug test before or after the debate:
"Vice President Biden intends to deliver his debate answers in words. If the President thinks his best case is made in urine he can have it. We'd expect nothing less from Donald Trump, who pissed away the chance to protect the lives of 200 thousand Americans when he didn't make a plan to stop COVID-19."
Well, tonight’s big event is a mere 18 hours away. For my part, I’m looking forward to seeing Il Duce walk around the debate stage and stand ominously behind Biden, the way did to Hillary, and then seeing Biden turn around, stare at him and say, “What the hell do you think you’re doing,” or just slugs him. (If the latter, Bill Barr will no doubt have him arrested by the Secret Service, prosecute him for assaulting the President, and then have him disqualified as the Democratic candidate, so, as much as I would like to see it happen, I am confident that Biden has sense enough not to fulfill my wish; but staring him down and asking what the hell he thinks he is doing will suffice/)
MS
I think that a lot of the "takes" above are too sophisticated by half, and so actually show a bit of a misunderstanding of what the Times report shows. To some degree this is the fault of the NYT, which isn't as explicit as it might be on some of these things. (For some, with good reasons. Even with the lenient "public figure" rule, it's questionable to come flat out and accuse people of being a criminal - not an aggressive tax avoider, but a criminal - even though that is where lots of the evidence points. There is a good discussion by someone who, I'd be willing to bet, knows a lot more about tax law than anyone posting here (including me):
https://twitter.com/danhreck/status/1310506379459866624
Some points of my own: Chris notes that lots of people do what they can to avoid paying taxes. Most of them, though, make use of legal means to do this. We know perfectly well that Trump has violated the law in this regard - his settlement with NY State on his fraudulent "charity" essentially entails this, and it seems likely that the IRS will eventually conclude this if he isn't pardoned. But, lots of the other things revealed strongly suggest this. Most people are not tax cheats. Trump almost certainly is, and this report strongly suggests it.
The report also shows that he's a bad business person. Again, it could be more clear. I wish it were. But, this doesn't at all suggest someone merely engaged in fancy accounting to hide profits, but rather someone who is massively in debt and is only barely staying above water because of desperate measures. While people like you and I may have known this already, lots of people are still under the impression that Trump is a successful self-made man. This probably won't change _many_ minds, but if it may change some, and that's pretty good. (The Comey letter just before the election last year is thought, by most analysis, to have changed a bit more than 1% of minds - just enough to tip the election to Trump.)
Finally, and, I'd say, most importantly, the report clearly shows that Trump is _massively_ in debt, to people we know not who, and that this debt will come due soon, while he is president if he is re-elected. And, he has no plausible way to repay the debt. (This is leaving out the very large tax debt and penalties he almost certainly owes because of the tax fraud above.) This is...non-trivial. Someone with 1/100 of this sort of debt in anything like these circumstances wouldn't get the lowest level security clearance if they were applying to work for the federal government. This, itself, should be a bomb-shell. Again, it could have been reported more explosively. My hope is that the first bit is done carefully and coolly, with the fireworks part to come. But, this isn't trivial, it isn't what everyone does, and it is a big deal. I hope people will realize this.
Robert D,
Actually, Lucius Sergius Catilina had far more class than our Donaldus Trumpus Il Duce. And Cataline died with a sword in his hand, fighting with his troops, something Il Duce would never do. He would prefer dying cowering in fear, like Caligula.
MS
Some call it "Late Roman Decadence" some speak of the fall of the American Empire, but in fact history never repeats itself in the same way.
“The kind of frivolity and boredom which chips away at the established order and the indeterminate presentiment of what is yet unknown are all harbingers of imminent change. This gradual process of dissolution, which has not altered the physiognomy of the whole, is interrupted by the break of day, which in a flash and at a single stroke brings to view the structure of the new world.” (Hegel, Ph.of Sp.)
I know R.P.Wolff don’t like Hegel and I can understand that very good. But to see something in the dynamic of history, Hegels texts are sometimes important to understand. OK, Trump is not Napoleon, but the real problem is, Biden is not Wellington.
I don’t want to talk about names, but “frivolity” and “boredom” fit pretty well with the two people I saw on TV yesterday. Biden's arguments were as pale as his face, which was not only because of him but also because Trump has shifted the hole contexts in recent years so that even believing democrats no longer understand the contents of their own beliefs correctly.
A.K.
@ A.K.
I decided to listen rather than watch so I just got the audio version of the debate, and I thought Biden, while not great, did ok. It's not easy to make an argument, "pale" or otherwise, when your opponent is constantly interrupting in violation, as the moderator pointed out, of his campaign's agreement to the debate's ground rules. Those who got the visual as well as audio wd have seen, as I gather, Biden occasionally talking beyond T directly to the viewing audience, something T didn't really do.
Though T's record is pretty much a disaster, he cd have made a better case for himself than he did. No effort to mention foreign policy, no specific ref to his trade agreements, and his criticisms of the Obama-Biden record were couched in general terms. But then T has never been one to make a linear argument backed up w verifiable facts. And at the end he was reduced to raving about fraud blah blah blah.
To show the analysis of how and to what extent the Trump administration deconstructed the democratic institutions is not possible here.
But it would be possible. One would notice that these partly chaotic, partly well thought-out attacks are going so deeply to the roots of what we mean by democracy, that nobody who ever took this seriously should sleep peacefully.
I have appropriately seen the expression of this deep concern only once in the past few months. It was the facial expression and the content of Adam Schiff's speech to the Senate to justify the empeachment.
But im am in Europe. Maybe i dont see what happends not so clear and distingt.
A.K.
I'd say Marla Maples is a likely source for the tax returns: she could very well have had the legal right to the returns during the years covered and, as their daughter just graduated from college, it would be a safe bet that DT has no further support obligation to MM and thus, she has nothing to loose..
Post a Comment