Quick Takes (v48): The Zero Percenters

Quick Takes

We've been hearing for a long time about the 10%, the 1% and even the .10%. You know, the rich, the richer, and the richest of Americans, the ones with all of the money. The people we love to hate. The millionaires and billionaires, the latter group which That Guy From Vermont says shouldn't even exist.

There are lots of ways to identify who falls into these buckets, as this article shows. I've put two calculations into the table: individual income, as of 2019, and net worth, as of 2016, the most recent data available for this method of calculation.

To be honest, I think many people who express concerns about the 'wealth gap' are in the Top 10% based on income, and some may be there based on net worth as well, who have no idea they've "made it" - which is just one problem we have when talking about all of this income stuff in generalities. 

We also hear a lot -- a LOT -- about corporations that don't pay any taxes, and of course, about their owners or executives. You know - Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos. And maybe some other folks, but honestly I'd be hard pressed to name any of them, as would most people. Because, if we were to believe the politicians (you know the ones I'm talking about), Jeff Bezos is the worst person in the entirety of the history of the universe.

But here's the thing: there are LOTS Of corporations that don't pay federal taxes, or that get credits against their federal tax liability, giving them an effective tax rate of zero percent. Not just Amazon - although that's the one about which we hear the most.  There's a list, from CNBC, that came out back in December showing the 91 Fortune 500 companies - 91! - with that coveted 'zero percent or less' effective tax rate.

It includes Amazon, we know, but also companies I'm bucketing as follows:

• energy and natural resources, including American Electric Power, Atmos Energy, Chesapeake Energy, Duke Energy,Edison International, Occidental Petroleum and more; 
• financial services, including Ally Financial, Brighthouse Financial, Hartford Financial Services, Prudential Financial Services, and SPX; 
• food and beverage services, including Aramark, Darden Restaurants, MolsonCoors, and Starbucks;
• automotive, logistics and transportation: FedEx, General Motors, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Navistar International, Penske Automotive, Ryder Systems, and Trinity Industries;
• travel and tourism: Alaska Air Group, Avis Budget Group, JetBlue Airways, MGM Resorts International;
• media: Netflix, Gannett;
• construction: Beacon Roofing, Builders FirstSource, Mohawk Industries;
• fashion: Levi Strauss, Phillips-Van Heusen, Tapestry;
• health care/pharmaceutical: Eli Lilly, McKesson, Tenet Healthcare;
• long-established companies with familiar names, including  Deere, DowDuPont, Halliburton, Honeywell International, IBM, OwensCorning, PitneyBowes, US Steel, Whirlpool; and
• tech companies: Activision Blizzard, DXC Technology, Nvidia, and Salesforce.com among them.

Note that my bucketing is based on personal knowledge or a quick, 100,000-foot-level Internet search and may not directly match how the company considers itself. I do know that many of these companies (and those from the list that I didn't include above) could be hugely diversified and may defy this kind of general bucketing done by a rank amateur like me, or even by an expert. 

That said, I tried to show the breadth of the issue of companies not paying federal taxes, and to illustrate the dearth of publicity about any of these companies - other than Amazon, of course - from the candidates who are running for president or other elected office.  

I get that we like to put faces and names on political issues - easier for people to understand, to remember, and to attack with anger -- I get it.

But,

• if you're running as the climate change guy, look at all the energy companies on the full list, and tell me why you're not shouting about those companies and telling me what we can do if they only paid taxes; 
• if you're running as the savior of health insurance (or even health care) as we know it, look Eli Lilly and McKesson, and talk to me about what you're going to do to make sure they pay their fair share; and; 
• if you're running as the person who's going to clean up Wall Street (again) and the financial industry (again), why are you not pointing your fingers at the easy, easy targets on this list, and showing us all the things you'll do with all that tax revenue?

And, instead of telling us how you're going to tax the wealthy a lot and tax the middle class not very much,l - understanding that people in that 10% bucket think they are the middle class and think they don't deserve to be taxed any more - why not start telling us how you're going to ensure we get that 21% corporate tax rate from all these companies?

Wondering on Wednesday (v165)

And here we go, wondering again...

We did our taxes yesterday, and the most wonder-full thing about it was the question of how much time the IRS had to waste making the form almost (but not quite) the size of a postcard, in order to meet the Republican promise? As an aside, I'm also wondering if the person tasked with making the form tiny was an essential employee during the #Trumpshutdown?

Staying on taxes for a second, our tax prep package takes care of both federal and state, including picking up rocks and stuff looking for potential income-grabbing requirements and taxable income-reducing requirements. One of those caught my eye for a fleeting moment -- the one related to organized militias. I hadn't seen that one before, so hit the 'learn more' button, as I wondered if there would be any benefit to running out and getting a gun so we'd be able to take the reduction next year.

Sadly, in New York an 'organized militia' is not the same as the 'well regulated militia' we read about in the Second Amendment; New York actually wants you to be in the Guard or Reserves or similar, to get a benefit here. So no - no guns for us.

What else is on tap tonight?

The Update Desk: Vending Machine Tax Break

A couple of weeks ago, in this Meanwhile, Back in Albany post, we learned about a really cool tax break - known as a 485-a - that developers can get when they put commercial space in their residential buildings.

In the case of the Three Vending Machines, it was a local project, Copper Beech Commons, built by a local developer who has made a difference with several of his properties over the years. But in this case, having the vending machines garnered the project some $3 million in property tax savings, and I think cost him a little bit of respect.

Now, clearly the NY Legislature didn't intend for this to happen -- as the prior post noted, we're burdened with a number of at least OK ideas put into law, only to have them identified as ripe for the picking by smart lawyers (or campaign donors, as the case may be).

For Copper Beech Commons, however, it seems the leaves have fallen, or something. In an article last week on Syracuse.com, Tim Knauss followed up on his original story and let us know that  Syracuse city assessors have been out inspecting properties claiming the 485-a tax break "where commercial operations were not readily evident from the street."

A small office at the property has been cleaned up, with new doors added, to try and entice a small business to lease the space and preserve the tax break. Why? Well, as city assessment commissioner David Clifford noted,

Vending machines are not a commercial use, especially when they're owned and operated by the building owner. As far as I'm concerned, that's just like having a washing machine in the basement.

The assessors last warned the developer that the vending machines did not count for the exemption four or five years ago, so there should have been no surprise that there could be problems once the last (and only) tenant of the space moved out in 2015.

I hope the developer finds a tenant, or refunds us all of the tax money he got illegitimately for all those years. More importantly, I hope we can count on city officials to consistently be good stewards of our tax dollars, and that our legislators can find a way to correct these 'good ideas gone bad' laws while they're sitting around waiting for their leaders to come up with next year's budget.

Quick Takes(v27): When Ivanka Came to Town

Quick Takes

The president's daughter made a stop in Syracuse yesterday, participating in a closed roundtable discussion with our congressman John Katko (NY-24), school district officials, educators and students who participated in the Syracuse City School District's P-Tech program at the Institute of Technology.

For those who are not familiar with P-Tech, students who complete the five-to-six year program end up with a high school diploma, a college degree and job training. Here's some info from the SCSD's website.

Students engage in a wide variety of real-world work experience including visits from industry experts, internships, shadow days, coaching and mentoring, part-time employment...

Students complete a rigorous curriculum in science, technology and math that enables them to meet all the requirements of a high school Regent's diploma... beyond this, accredited college instructions deliver... a course of study that empower students to earn an AAS degree in mechanical engineering...

Ivanka had a chance to credit her father's administration for driving a need for a well-trained workforce.

Now that tax reform has passed and we have deregulated so many industries, the biggest concern is the lack of a skilled workforce.

She also noted her passion for workforce development, and that

There are so many job opportunities, and many of those job opportunities don't require a four year degree. 

In addition to the tax cuts and deregulation, she pointed out her father's efforts in calling for increased spending for and access to STEM, including a presidential memorandum he issued.

...Trump recognizes the importance of expanding high-quality STEM and computer science education, especially for those in historically underserved groups, to better prepare the American workforce for jobs of the future. This Presidential Memorandum directs Secretary of Education DeVos to place high quality STEM education, particularly computer science, at the forefront of the Department of Education's priorities, and in doing so, establish a goal of devoting at least $200 million per year in grant funds towards this priority and explore administrative actions that will add or increase focus on computer science in existing K-12 schools as well as post-secondary education.

The head of the Manufacturers Association of Central New York (MACNY), Randy Wolken, noted that local businesses are struggling finding people to fill available positions.

We have a crisis right now. We don't have enough workers. 

He referenced a five to ten percent vacancy rate at MACNY member companies, on average, and points to that as why employers need to invest in programs like P-Tech. (MACNY is one of the partners in the SCSD program, along with OCC.)

Funding is a key issue for these programs; at ITC, for example, tuition totals $102,000, with additional costs for books ($28K) and transportation ($18K), much of it coming from competitive grants. And that's to cover one year of the program.

Pushing a $200M in grant funding at the federal level falls way short of what's needed to truly build the 'workforce of the future' - which is why Wolken's statement about employers investing in these programs is critical. It's also worth noting that MACNY has lobbied in the past for state government support to create an apprenticeship program, which I talked about in this post from back in 2016.

With the $500,000, if it's added to the state budget, MACNY could run a central apprenticeship program that would reduce costs and administrative red tape for all local manufacturers. Much of the state money would pay for administrative costs involved in running the program.

At that time, I suggested that MACNY member companies, and of course the local labor unions, need to cough up their own money to fund these programs, as they would be the direct beneficiaries of developing the specifically skilled workforce they lament we're missing.

MACNY got the money for the program, and the group is actively encouraging their members to get moving on apprenticeships, which is a very good thing (even though I still think they should have funded it on their own).

But back to today.

We can surely disagree about Ivanka and what value she might bring to the Administration or the country, and we can surely argue about how we should define  "the biggest concern" resulting from the very generous corporate tax code changes and the massive deregulation we've seen during the Trump administration.

But I don't think there's a ton of disagreement that companies have benefited significantly, as was intended, as was promised. And as so many business owners have been so eager to tell us.

So, now more than ever, the same companies that have benefited so greatly from the permanent changes to the corporate tax code should be heavily investing not just in equipment and such, but in ensuring the viability and availability of our workforce.

Competitive grants are fine -- but $200M is not going to go very far given what employers across the country, their lobbyists, and folks like Ivanka Trump are telling us we're up against. And even if there is other federal and/or state money available for these types of programs, we can't afford to ignore a key source of funds.  Now is the time for the folks who got those great (and can I say again, permanent) tax cuts to step up.

Ivanka thanked everyone who attended the discussion, noting

I've learned a lot. I'll take your suggestions back to Washington with me.

I hope she takes away Randy Wolken's message - that employers need to be on the forefront of these efforts, and that she hears my message - that they need to be there with wide open wallets.

OrangeVerse XXVIII: Ohio

The president made a campaign stop today in Ohio, visiting a company that makes cylinder and gave bonuses as a result of the GOP's corporate tax rate cut. The president had fun, I think - and likely so did people watching him, until the live feed got interrupted so that people could speak almost breathlessly about the plummeting stock market for the second trading day in a row. The market is dropping, "they say," because of strong wage growth and a good jobs market, two things that Trump mentioned in Ohio.

And some other stuff - he talked about other stuff too, you just have to pay attention.

(Laughter)

I want to thank you all

and I want to thank Jeff Norris

and everyone here at Sheffer Corporation

for hosting us at this

really incredible facility.

We just toured it.

I love equipment.

And I love workers

You have them both. 

But it's really something

Wonderful place.

Here I Am!

I'm here

in the beautiful

Cincinnati

I'll tell you, 

you know I was here -

I worked here

for a long time. 

People don't know; 

most people don't know.

Swifton Village

long time ago.

Really? Oh you know Swifton.

Who Knows?

Came here

a long time ago.

I had a great success

with my father. 

I was a young success.

And you know, if I

didn't have a success, 

maybe I would have gone

and just done something else.

Who knows?

But I spend

a lot of time in this state

and  a lot of time

in Cincinnati

and I love it.

Sexy's Coming Back?

And that I really wanted to do

-- and come here

 and give something very big back.

And that's tax cuts,

I signed into law. 

Your paychecks are going way up.

Your taxes are going way down.

And right now,

for the first time

in a long time -

and you've seen it -

factories are coming back.

Everything is coming back.

They all want to be

where the action is. 

America is once

again open for business, 

right?

Friendly (Not Friendly)
But you know, 
you can work hard, 
but if you don't have
the right leader 
setting the right tone - 
in all fairness,
I'm not even saying - 
I am non-braggadocious.
But if I don't 
set a tone like 
"You're not going to keep
taking our jobs."
You are not going
to keep doing what you're doing
And wait until you see
what's happening over the
next two or three months
with what we're doing
to countries that
 have treated us so unfairly.
In many cases so-called
"friendly countries."
I don't call them "friendly."
I don't call them "friendly."
But that's all changing
and those companies
are coming back and
those jobs are coming back.

Support/Hose
I think everybody
is going to be supportive.
We need more people that are
going to do a great job
and keep us in the right direction.
You know
we need them
badly too.
Or it all
goes back to
where it was - and worse.
Oh, but did we
catch them in the act, or what?
You know what I'm talking - 
Oh, did we catch them in the act?
They are very embarrassed.
They never thought
they were going
to get caught.
We caught them.
Hey, we caught them
It's so much fun.
We're like the 
great sleuth.

There's more, when I can catch my breath. 

TGIF 2/2/18

Hey everyone -- desperately seeking advice today, while celebrating that it's Friday.

Like many folks who got paid today, I got my Republican tax cut 'raise' and boy, I'm struggling trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do with it.

Seriously!

Am I supposed to be a 'good' American and immediately spend it? If I'm supposed to spend it, what are the rules for that?

Can I spend it online, or do I have to spend in a bricks-and-mortar establishment? And, would it be OK to spend it in a store that the president doesn't like?  Can I actually spend it at Macy's, or Nordstrom?

Do have I to spend it on something actually made in America, or is it good enough to buy from an American company, even if the product is made someplace else?

If I decide to purchase something that is made in America, do I have to get something that was made by an American company, or is it OK to purchase something from a foreign company as long as they employ American workers?  You know, like solar panels for the roof or something.

Does it have to be made by a union member? By someone earning at least $15 an hour? How am I supposed to know if either of those are true?

And what if I wanted to get a car? Some of those are made with parts from other countries, but they're assembled here in America - would that count as a Made in America purchase?

Can I purchase fruit or veggies for the Super Bowl party?

I'd be OK with that, as long as I can tell whether my purchase was picked by an American, or by a legal immigrant, because I certainly don't want to get anything that was handled by an illegal one that's stealing a job from an American.

I'd want to get something from a small family farm, if I could, not a factory farm. But then, sometimes the small family farms are in co-ops and so their stuff may look like it came from a factory farm. How am I supposed to tell?

Is the Wegmans Organic Farm a family farm? And if I start buying only organics, isn't that going to put Americans who make pesticides out of work, and drive down our economy?

Gosh, it all seems so very confusing trying to spend the money the right way -- maybe I should save the money for a rainy day, or for my retirement?

I can put it in the bank, I guess - but can I use the ATM, or do I have to actually deal with a teller? I wouldn't want to put a person out of work, but the ATM is so easy. Does anyone know if any of those are made in the USA? Programmed in the US, at least?

I could use the money to make an extra payment on my credit card, I guess. But then that won't stimulate the economy at all -- it'll actually take money out of the economy twice: first when I don't spend the money directly, and second when the credit card company doesn't get any interest. I wouldn't want that.

Maybe I'll pay for a subscription to the Washington Post, or the NY Times. Oh, crap -- that's Bezos and fake news and more fake news.  I better not do that.

Damn. I really am struggling with this. Hopefully I'll get it all figured out before I have to go back to work on Monday.

TGIF.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v15)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

Picking up where we left off on the Sonofa Gov's 2018 State of the State, let's turn again to the litany of things Andrew Cuomo wants to accomplish this session.

Here's a few quick hits, some of which are likely going nowhere, until and even after details get fleshed out:

• protecting union workers
• same day registration, no-fault absentee ballots and early voting
• closing the LLC loophole and implementing a 'true public financing system" 
• social media disclosures on who ("or what") is paying for political advertising
• cashless tolling at bridges, tunnels, and on the Thruway
• expanding investment and acreage for to parks and tourism investments
• airport modernization, investment in the Long Island Railroad, and maybe a tunnel or two
• preserving CHP, Medicaid and our health insurance industry
• expanding pre-K programs and free college tuition programs
• finding creative ways to reduce property taxes (but not the unfunded mandates that drive them)

Some of the harder stuff?  Terrorism, for one.

...lone wolves are a new threat. It is getting worse not better. The Internet companies must search their hearts and minds to determine their obligation to public safety when they know who is visiting terrorist sites, and they know who is learning to kill Americans. That is there issue. In the meantime, our issue is to protect ourselves.

That means more police, better training, state of the art surveillance - and, restructuring Penn Station, which is particularly vulnerable - even if it means using eminent domain if private properties near the Station need to be included in the mix. Cuomo calls for Amtrak, the feds, and city officials to come together to make the necessary improvements. This might be tough with Trump in charge, especially since the feds just stepped back from a new NY/NJ tunnel plan.

Rethinking taxes, another hard one. Cuomo mentioned the federal government's "assault on New York" and the three ways we'll address it. First, challenge the new tax bill it in court - it's unconstitutional, it's double taxation, it violates states' rights and equal protection. Then, we'll develop a 'repeal and replace' effort for every state, every taxpayer.  Finally, we're going to look for a different way to fund New York, reducing our reliance on income taxes, such as a payroll tax.  And yeah, carried interest would be a thing of the past, too.

There was a bit more in there, but then the Sonofa Gov tried to find his father.

As the greatest Republican president Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." But our obligation as leaders is not just to say what we are against, but also what we support. Our obligation as leaders is not just to criticize, but to offer an alternative - and we do. New York follows a different path. New York believes that there is no future through division, but only through unity. The New York Way is to believe diversity is not a liability; it is the exact opposite. Diversity is our greatest asset. We celebrate it. The New York Way is that tolerance is expected from all and inclusion is our operating principle, and forging community is our ultimate goal...

And maybe, just maybe, to fuel the fire for 2020.

Gay and straight, white and black and brown, upstate and downstate - all working together focusing on what unites us rather than divides us and then building on that commonality. Now, this is not a new principle. It's not a democratic or republican idea, nor is it even uniquely New York. It is an idea proven over 240 years. It is the nation's founding premise and enduring promise. Is it our Founding Fathers' essential wisdom summed up in just three words: e pluribus unum. Out of many, one. So fundamental to the American idea that in 1782 they stitched the words on the great seal of the United States, and that seal and those words are on a flag that has hung in the Oval Office everyday since. Right behind president Trump's desk. To find the way forward, the president only needs to turn around. 

And then, back to New York.

That, my friends, is the true formula for what makes America great. That is the simple yet profound idea that made America the greatest country on the globe. And New York - New York was the laboratory for that idea. We proved that it worked in 1782, and we proved that it works today. This year, let us show what New York is, at its best. Let us show this nation the New York lesson: that at times of trouble and anxiety, the premise that made America great still guides us. That we do not seek to raise ourselves by pulling another down, but rather we believe we succeed by raising each other up. 

That is the New York Way.  And the New York Way is true north. And our true north is to follow the credo on the great seal of the State of New York: always reach higher, always hear our better angels, always aspire to unify, and always point up. 

Excelsior!

To infinity - and beyond!

No, seriously - there's a whole lot of stuff in here, and a lot of it is going to cost a ton of money that we simply do not have. Even Cuomo admits we don't have any money.

It's going to be an interesting session, for sure, starting with Cuomo's budget, due in the next ten days or so.

Sunday School 12/31/17

I was taking a stroll through the hallways today, thinking I'd make one last stop in each of our Sunday School classrooms. But I started - and stopped - with CNN's State of the Union.

Why? Well, call me crazy but it seemed appropriate to end the year with someone interviewing Anthony Scaramucci. 

Yep - that Anthony Scaramucci, the one who once called Trump a "hack politician" and an "inherited money dude from Queens County" and who gave that  super focused interview with CNN back in July, in which he was super focused on telling us what the president was super focused on.

Today, the Mooch was talking with Dana Bash, for reasons that I will likely never understand. I mean, you're CNN - the most reviled network in the country, at least with the president and his followers.  You're number one with a bullet on the #FakeNews list, for cripes sake - and so you end the year talking to a guy who worked for the administration for 11 days before going down in flames because of his inability to control what he says to reporters?  I can only imagine that Ivana Trump or Marla Maples were unavailable to offer their opinions on how the president feels about year one.

That was Bash's first question - how is the president feeling about his first year in office?

Listen, I think the president feels great. I talked to him last Monday. And he's very happy with what happened as it related to the tax reform bill that was put in place recently. And so, listen, I think you got - 2018 is going to be a big year, a big year for the Republicans.

Honing in on the tax reform question, Bash wondered if the president was punishing Blue states in the tax bill, with the SALT provision, which limits the deductions for state and local taxes. Trump implied he could have worked with the Dems on taxes. Scaramucci knows the answer on this one, he does.

I think all the president's saying there is that there are always chips on the table for bargaining purposes. And so, because they weren't willing to deal with him, a lot of the chips that they could have used were left on the table. 

And so that is actually a signal from the president. He's trying to signal the Democrats that he's ready to work with them, and that whatever chips are on the table for health care or for DACA, he's there to negotiate with them. 

I mean, I think that's been the hallmark of his entrepreneurial success as a business leader, is being a great negotiator, and I think he's just trying to signal to these guys, listen, there's stuff that we can do together. 

As it relates to the SALT situation, I know people on the Democratic side will say that was a punishment for the blue states. I don't think anybody sees it that way. I think we're past that as it relates to tax strategy the good relationship with Secretary Mnuchin.

The goal there was just basically to find ways to lower the overall rate, but then also make everybody a little big more competitive and accountable on their budgets at the state and local level.

So -- so to me, I think, long term, that is probably short-term states for - short-term pain for the states like the one I live in, New York. But, long term, I think it will make those states more adaptive, aggressive, and leaner and more entrepreneurial. So I think it's a good thing, by and large.  

They talked a little about the FBI and the president's attack on the agency, as well as attacks from other Republicans; Scaramucci thinks it's just the president expressing some "frustration" but Bash wondered whether it's really Trump being worried about the outcome of the investigation.

After discounting that, and referencing the NY Times interview about how "he expects the investigation of Mueller to treat him very fairly" he offered some insight.

So, I'm not worried about it. I don't think he's woried about it. I think he's frustrated about it. I think he doesn't like the scandals incorporated that go on in Washington, where we find the scandal du jour to try and distract our political opponents from their agendas by picking on them personally.

And so I think that has got to stop on both sides, frankly. I have said that if Senator Clinton had become president, they would be attacking her on her emails, they would be attacking her on Uranium One. 

Washington has this magnificent way of finding scandals to hit people with to distract them from their agendas. The great news about the president is, he's undistracted, he's undeterred and I think he is going to have a phenomenal 2018.

There was more after that, but there's really no point in going any further.

Because while Scaramucci  may have convinced the folks at CNN that he's still close to the president, I'm not sure that's really true. Heck, I could have given any of the answers that Scaramucci did - all you have to do is watch the news.

And the answer about the "scandal du jour" and the fact that if Clinton has been elected she'd be attacked on Uranium One and her emails -- good lord, the email stuff has never stopped and Trump himself has been hammering on the Uranium One issue. News broke today that AG Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has ordered an investigation, as was promised last month.

The Mooch would know that, and CNN certainly should know that -- and certainly should have questioned it, instead of letting it lie like a sleeping dog.

Closing out 2017 with this guy sort is a perfect way to wind things down. And allowing interviews like this to stand without questioning the easy stuff is something that hopefully we'll see less of in the coming year.

See you around campus.

TGIF 12/29/17

And so we come to the last TGIF of the year -- incredible, isn't it?

I was going to do one of those Year in Review things, but tonight doesn't feel like the right time to do it.

I mean, it's Friday, for Pete's sake!  We should be celebrating!

So, let's do that - let's celebrate the week that was, using presidential tweets.

Saturday, December 23: Perhaps more has been accomplished by the Trump Administration than by any other president.

Or, perhaps not.

Sunday, December 24: the massive drilling in the ANWR which is opposed by a majority of US voters, according to Trump's favorite polling company? Yeah, that's a n indicator of an incredible year right there.

Monday, December 25: Say it -- I dare you, just say it!

Um, OK, sure - 'our' cherished and beautiful phrase? If you say so.

Tuesday, December 26: Where are the people shouting warnings from the rooftops that the crazy growth in the stock market is unsustainable? What ever happened to good old irrational exuberance?

Wednesday, December 27. This one, I give him. I've seen nothing to dispute that His Generals have done an excellent job on this front.

Thursday, December 28: All I can say is, now is not the time to be talking about global warming and climate change. Remember? Now is the time to be talking about taxes.

Friday, December 29: Let's end the year by bashing one of America's companies, because its founder happens to own a major national media outlet. 

Completely ignoring the real reason why the USPS is losing money, and missing an opportunity to get rid of a regulation that would make a huge difference. 

Yep - another week in the books.

TGIF.

WWYD: Disaster Tax Relief

As we wait for the House to re-approve the "massive tax cut for the middle class" today (after yesterday's SNAFU on a handful of provisions not meeting Senate reconciliation rules), and wait for another 'excitable boy' gavel bang from Paul Ryan, I thought it would be fun to put some of the changes through the What Would You Do? meter.

The Rs have said their plan 'reforms' and 'simplifies' our tax code; they did that by tinkering or massaging a tax benefit here and there. Tax benefits, for the purpose of this discussion, includes those things people derisively refer to as loopholes - things that benefit only certain Americans, primarily 'other people' (hence the derision).

One of these benefits extends to people who suffer losses from disasters such as floods and fires.

Right now, disaster victims can deduct losses that aren't insured and that amount to more than 10 percent of their incomes.

So, think about friends, family and others living in the Gulf Coast or Puerto Rico who were impacted by the hurricanes and floods earlier this year. Think back to Sandy, Irene, Katrina, and Andrew and all of the other storms we remember by name.

Think about all of the people who were impacted by the flooding right here in NY along the Lake Ontario shore, for months. The official declaration was made for most of counties along the shore back in November, but some were left out and are waiting for a review to be finished to know for sure whether they'll be included in the declaration.

It's easy to picture losses from those and other disasters far exceeding 10% of a homeowner's income, isn't it, especially since flood insurance is prohibitively expensive for many people? And, especially since in many cases (my own backyard included) the flood maps don't make a whole heckuva lot of sense outside coastal areas, major rivers, and other obviously flood-prone areas.

Think about all of the people who have lost their homes in the California fires this year - epic and historic wildfires, still burning. Sure, some of them are celebrities, but most of them are just regular folks, right?

So, what's different after the GOP's massaging of this loophole? Well,

Under the new tax plan, the deduction could only be claimed for those disasters that the president declares a federal emergency. The proposed change would go into effect January 1, 2018, meaning disaster victims could file one final deduction this year if they experienced a loss that did not receive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) support.

What's the impact of the change? It's hard to say for sure, but we do have some historical info.

In 2015, more than 72,000 people filed a casualty or theft deduction resulting in $1.6B in claims, according to the IRS' Statistics of Income Division (The IRS lumps casualty and theft deductions together in its count). 

Most of us can pretty readily recall the big ones, the national disasters that do receive the presidential declaration, but unless we are paying particular attention or are personally impacted, it's harder to remember the ones that don't. Here's a reminder of just one that didn't make the cut.

The historic wildfires that hit Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma and Colorado last March, however, did not receive a federal disaster designation, meaning those affected would not have been able to utilize the personal-loss deductions if such an event had occurred under the new tax plan... 

Losses to the High Plains wildfires last March were significantly less (than those associated with Harvey and Irma). The fires burned 2100 square miles in the four states, causing about $55 million in fence losses. In Texas alone, the personal losses to farmers and ranchers was estimated at $25.1 million.

While farm and ranch losses to wildfire, tornadoes, etc., pale in comparison to damage from major hurricanes, losses to individuals from either event are the same. 

So,  if you were making the decisions about how our tax plan should work, what would you do about deductions for disasters?

1. Allow deductions, with no percent of income limitation, regardless of whether a federal disaster is declared.
2. Allow deductions, with a percent of income limitation, regardless of whether a federal disaster is declared.
3. Allow deductions, with no percent of income limitation, only when a federal disaster is declared.
4. Allow deductions, with a percent of income limitation, only when a federal disaster is declared.
5. Do not allow deductions, but offer low interest federal loans to everyone to cover uninsured losses.
6. Do not allow deductions, but offer low interest federal loans only to those households with income under $200,000.
7. Do not allow deductions or federal loans; the homeowner, rancher, businessman, etc. would be responsible for either having enough insurance to protect themselves, or being able to secure loans through state or local governments or their financial institutions.

Have at it, legislators.

Sunday School 12/17/17

I dropped in NBC's Meet the Press this morning.

One of Chuck Todd's guests was Marc Short, the Trump administration's director of legislative affairs, who was there to talk mostly about the GOP's tax plan. Todd started out by playing a number of Trump's promises about tax reform:

• At the center of our plan is massive tax relief for the American middle class.
• We're gonna have three brackets instead of seven we're doing a major major major simplification.
• And we're gonna make it nice and simple. And we're getting rid of carried interest.
• All of this does not add to our debt or deficit. In other words it's going to cost me a fortune!

And then he asked Short about those broken promises. Here's his answer.

Chuck there are many deliveries here in the bill that the president made promises on. One, it does simplify the tax code, some of the things you're not talking about is that it eliminates oil and gas production credits, it also eliminates many deductions that families and businesses were taking such as specifically lobbying expenses. It's helping to drain the swamp.

 There are promises he made he delivered on. There are certain industries here that made it impossible for us to deliver on every single one of those. But keep in mind what's most important, Chuck, we've lowered the corporate rate from 35% to 21% to bring jobs back to our country. That was a signature accomplishment in this bill, a 40% reduction.

He is lowering and delivering middle income tax relief to families across the country. For an average single mom earning $40,000 with two children, she gets a $1400 tax benefit. For the average family of four earning $70,000 they get a $2000 benefit. He delivered on his promise to focus on middle income families as well as to provide corporate tax relief. The simplification, there are several elements we did simplify. We didn't get as much as we want, it's a part of the compromise here you have to work with. 

Todd asked about Short leading with the corporate rate being the "signature accomplishment" of the bill, and how that part is permanent but the individual aspects are not. In part, short blamed the Senate's budget reconciliation process.

We would love to have the individual side permanent too. The reality is that corporations need to make investments years in advance to know what's going to happen as opposed to numbers continuing to gyrate. You're giving them assurances to where we're going to be 10 years out so they can make long term investments in our country. The budget reconciliation rules in the Senate are somewhat arcane and make it difficult to do both. If we could get the individual side permanent, we would love to do that also and we will continue to try and work to do so.

In response to a question about bipartisanship and real tax reform,  Short noted, among other things

Oh, it is real reform. It's the most significant tax reform we've had since 1986. 

Fast forward past the conversation about entitlements and more Trump campaign promises, which  the cynic in me says will be dropped like hot potatoes once the tax plan is approved, and about the Mueller investigation, to the final round table discussion.

It's not always I find myself agreeing with George Will, but he nailed it

Well, first of all, (Short) said it's the best simplification since 1986 which is rather like being the tallest building in Topeka. The fact is, they took a 70,000 page tax code and made it more complicated. Then the question rises, "well, will the Republicans reform entitlements?" The tax code enriches the entitlement menu by doubling the child tax code and making $1400 of it refundable which means a check goes out to people who don't pay taxes.

Because, well, Republicans are the ones who think paying people to have more children is wrong. Right?

Will also called out something about the corporate tax rate that most folks don't consider - where does the money paying the taxes actually come from?

Lowering the corporate tax rate, the proper rate for corporation taxation is zero because we don't know who pays them. Economists argue about whether it comes out of employees' wages, shareholders, passed onto customers. If you don't know who's paying a tax, don't have that tax.

And finally, he said one of the things I've long maintained.

Reduce it to 21%, it's a great thing to do. But any company that was paying 35% needed to fire its lawyers and accountants. The fact is most companies are paying on average of about 28% anyway. 

What a fantastic accomplishment for the GOP. and Merry Christmas to us.

See you around campus - after the New Year. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v114)

Let's get right to it, shall we?

Since the president doesn't watch television, I wonder who had the unpleasant task of informing Donald Trump that, thanks to young people, African Americans, women and write-in voters, he was a two-time loser in the Alabama Senate race?

And, like practically everyone (and by everyone I mean all of the real human beings) who follows the president on Twitter, I wonder who it was that wrote the initial tweet sent on the @realDonaldTrump page congratulating Doug Jones?  Clearly these are not the words of the president:

Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory. The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win. The people are Alabama are great and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!

Nah - we had to wait until the morning before the real @aRealDonaldTrump put out his own words:

The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!

Of course, we don't know why Trump originally endorsed Big Luther, because he deleted most of those tweets as soon as Strange lost, and became a stranger to Trump.

I wonder, also, why Trump spent so much time talking about Nancy Pelosi in his comments about  Doug Jones. As we learned back in 2010, Nancy is quite athletic, but I don't think that she wields power over both the House and the Senate at the same time, does she?

Switching gears, we're told via #FakeNews that the House and Senate conference group working on reconciling the tax reform bill have come to terms, which include implementing the new 21% corporate tax rate next year. 

That's a tick up from the 20% the House wanted, but it goes into effect a year sooner than the Senate would have done in their version, so it's a win for corporations who will be bringing jobs and billions back to America.

But I have to wonder, are the reports even true, given the source?

Sunday School 12/3/17

Regular readers of  the Sunday School series will notice the post logo is missing from the top right corner; that's by design this week. Today we're talking about a more traditional Sunday School topic - religion.

If you've read the blog for a while, you know that I'm not a religious person, and that I struggle equally with politicians interjecting their faith into our lives (here's one example) and with religious people interject themselves into politics. And while I'm not religious, I hold pastors and other faith leaders to a higher standard than I do regular folks - so I'm always disheartened when I hear hatred and denigration coming from them, like this pastor who called for the killing of gays, or this one who considers peers who disagree with him to be 'bogus' ministers.

I'm never closer to religion than when I'm following discussions on a friend's social media page. He speaks openly about his faith, and the challenges that faith poses, in a particularly honest and astute way when talking about politics. He knows my feelings about religion but doesn't hold them against me; rather, I'm humbled by the patience shown to me, the welcome afforded me, when we talk.

I want to share a recent conversation on my friend's page, which was initially about sexual harassment  (including indiscretions by the president) but gradually expanded to cover other topics, including the GOP tax plan and how rich and poor are treated these days.One of the participants in the discussion is a pastor who liberally cites biblical references on the thread.

At one point in the discussion about the president's misbehavior, the pastor offered the thoughts below. I edited out much of the repetition and the biblical references to focus on his own words, but I didn't change the intent, which should be familiar:

The golden rule of equity is, to do to others as we would they should do to us... This is grounded upon that great commandment, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. As we must bear the same affection to our neighbor that we would have borne to ourselves... We must put other people upon the level with ourselves, and reckon we are as much obliged to them as they to us...

Keep that discussion of the Golden Rule in mind; you'll need it later.

Nestled in one of the pastor's lengthy responses (over 700 words) on the tax plan were multiple denigrating references to 'snowflakes.' As in Godless snowflakes, lying crazy snowflakes, welfare cheating snowflakes, and so on. I was taken aback by the tone, especially given who made the comments, and given it was the same one who posted the ones above.

I asked about his name-calling, as it seemed out of place in the middle of the biblical references. His answer?

Picked it up off the Internet, I thought it to be lighter and more cool than an immature irresponsible irreverent insolvent indigent! Got a better word? (Emphasis added.)

Not the response I was expecting, so I clarified my question.

Was more generally questioning the need to label and insult in the middle of all the scripture. As to your less cool choices (noted above in your comment) how are you judging the maturity, reverence, solvency of those who disagree with your opinion - or perhaps *why* do you judge them, might be the better question. 

Because, as I noted, I hold religious leaders to a higher standard - and even though his comments are personal ones, he is always on-the-job, right? To embed his insults in the middle of scripture seemed just wrong to me.

In a 900+ word response, which included at least 22 separate biblical citations, he embedded these personal explanations to justify name-calling generally, and specifically shaming the less fortunate, the ones about whom we typically say "there, but for the grace of God, go I' (emphasis added, again).

God, who has appointed every man's property by his providence, forbids by his law the invading of that appointment, either by downright theft You shalt not steal, or by fraudulent dealing "You shall not cheat, or deal falsely." Whatever we have in the world, we must see to it that it be honestly come by, for we cannot be truly right, nor long rich, with that which is not. 

Because people who are on welfare, or who are not fans of losing tax deductions they rely on to survive financially, or who don't like the disparity between rich and poor in today's America are all  frauds and cheats?

As a Christian pastor there is a responsibility to reveal to transgressors that grace, and redemption for those who turn from darkness to light and evil to God. 

Because calling someone names, accusing them of cheating, theft, and fraud is revealing the path to redemption? And an obligatory revelation at that?

When any person through words or action shows contempt to law, ethics, lawful authorities and the morality and righteousness of God, it is the duty and the Christian responsibility of anyone in compliance to speak out against it! To warn of the wrong and to encourage the good and to avail the grace of God is our responsibility.

This was in reference to the snowflake/liars/cheater/liberals, but is the exact opposite of what he said about those who questioned the president - in the same post. What's good for the goose, not so much good for the gander, eh?

There was more, but you get the drift.

Had he at any point, when using his own words, offered anything remotely like the helping hand the referenced verses suggested, I wouldn't have questioned a thing.  Had he not wielded bible verses like an ax on anyone who disagreed with his positions, I wouldn't have said a thing.  I didn't even care that his opinions are vastly different than mine on just about the entire discussion - that's why we have discussions.

But justifying his words by wrapping them them in a biblical cloak, and not seeing that they not only don't support but directly conflict with the scripture he cited?  I call foul.

As I said, I'm not religious, but this meme, passed to me by my Lutheran husband, sums up what I understand to be the role of a pastor:

See you around campus.

The Speaker Speaks to NPR (Pt one)

Boy, you've just gotta love House Speaker Paul Ryan.  He must really believe what he says, and how can you not love a guy who is so convinced he's right?

Ryan sat down with Steve Inskeep of NPR's Morning Edition, and the transcript is out. Let's take a look.

Inskeep asked about Ryan's priorities, and what the House tax plan says about the priorities, when you look at who wins and who loses. Here's how Ryan answered.

We wanted a middle class tax cut. We wanted to have a system that's more fair, much simpler. Right now the tax code is just chock full of special interest carve outs and deductions and loopholes. When you take away those loopholes, in exchange for lower tax rates and a broader tax base people who are very sophisticated who use all those loopholes will not have all those loopholes. But the exchange is lower tax rates across the board for most tax payers in a simplified system. By doubling the standard deduction, instead of 70% of Americans being able to fill an easier tax form, 9 out of 10 Americans  can fill out their taxes on a post card. So by simplifying the system that way and reducing loopholes, you can actually simplify dramatically and lower taxes across the board. 

Got that? The tax base is broader because (no explanation provided). And the 'very sophisticated' people who are using those 'loopholes'? They're middle class people who either have tax software, or an accountant, or a pen and paper, who file their taxes today. And again, there's that filing your taxes on a postcard, which is a ridiculous visual that he's been stuck on the whole time.

Ryan then talked about averages - which is fair, to a degree, because it's neither feasible or recommended that Congress try to come  up with a plan that will ensure that every single middle class American tax payer will save money.

The average tax cut for a middle-class family is going to be $1,182... This is designed to be a middle-class tax cut. I think the people who are concerned the most are some of the big businesses. That's where we hear most of the complaints about. But this is a middle-class tax cut, no two ways about it...

And then there was the math. As in

Here's  - just do the math. Instead of your first $12,000 being tax-free, as a couple your first $24,000 are tax free. You pay lower tax rates up the income scale until you come to the top tax bracket which is a million dollars. You have your child tax credit go from $1,000 per child to $1,600 per child. So things like that clearly produce tax relief for middle-income payers. 

So, how cool would it really be if taxes actually worked that way? Zero taxes taken out of your paycheck for the first $12K or $24K, then the right amount of taxes taken out for for each of the income brackets you move through, so that people actually have more money in their paychecks, and in their pockets?  Because that's what people need, right?  That's what the Speaker says.

Our goal here is to give people living paycheck-to-paycheck a break. More than half of the people in this country on the surveys show that they're living paycheck-to-paycheck. A lot of other people in this country are about $500 away from living paycheck to paycheck. So our goal here is to give people relief and to grow the economy. 

So, if that's the goal, why not make it happen? Why do we need to wait until the spring to fill out the postcard and then get money back from the government, which has absolutely zero impact on the paycheck-to-paycheck issue? 

Coming next - cutting taxes for the people who are concerned the most -- major corporations.

OrangeVerse XXI: How Far Away?

This morning, in advance of a meeting with Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders, the poet in chief offered this warm welcome:

In response, "Chuck and Nancy" released a statement of their own:

Given that the president doesn't see a deal between Democrats and the White House, we believe the best path forward is to continue negotiating with our Republican counterparts in Congress instead. If the president, who already said earlier this year that 'out country needs a good shutdown' isn't interested in addressing the difficult year end agenda, we'll work with those Republicans who are, as we did in April.

And then, after a "love fest" with Republicans, there was poetry.

So Far Away

...Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi

did not show up

for our meeting today.

I'm not really

that surprised.

We have a lot of differences.

They're weak

on crime,

They're weak

on illegal immigration. 

They want

the illegal folks

to come pouring 

into our border

and a lot of problems

are being caused, 

although we've stopped it

to a large extent as much

as you can without

the law,

which we're going to get.

Before this meeting and

before this missile launch,

they've been weak

on military. In terms

of spending they're

very hard to get

the military -- they 

want it for a lot

of other things but

the military is always secondary

to them. The military

to me is number one...

It Would Be So Fine to See Your Face at My Door

They want tax 

increases and we want

major tax decreases so

they decided not to show up.

They've been 

all talk and they've been

no action and now it's

ever worse now it's

not even talk so

they're not showing up

to the meeting.

It Doesn't Help to Know that You're So Far Away

Well, we are very

far apart

because our views on crime

and our views on immigration

and the military - 

so many are different.

But a lot of things

 have happened, even

over the last two hours

with respect to the 

missile launch.

We want

our military funded and

we want

it funded now.

It's going to be

bigger, better, stronger

-- it already is -- 

than ever before. But

we want

to get going on that

now. So that

is a difference

in all fairness

from this morning

when I told them that

we're way, way

far

away.

Nothing Else to do but Close My Mind

If you look

at the military we

want strong funding

for the military. They don't.

So many things.  As an example

they want

high taxes

We want

to cut taxes.

We're going

to cut taxes.

We're going

to reform.

We're going

to simplify.

They want

 high taxes

We want

low taxes.

...nothing to them

is important other

than raising taxes.

That's the

only thing they like

doing is

raising taxes.

Cue the Applause

Thank you all very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. 

Sunday School 11/26/17

I only visited one classroom today -- Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace at the helm. Today, Wallace and the gang were mostly talking about sexual harassment allegations - both generally and specifically.

One of the guests was former Presidential candidate and HP CEO Carly Fiorina, about whom our current president said:

Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, shes a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?

Wallace asked Fiorina about Trump's changing positions on Judge Roy Moore. Initially, he said that if the allegations were true, Moore should step aside. That became well, Moore denied the allegations, which were from 40 years ago, and he deserves to be heard. Which has now become this:

Fiorina's answer was spot on.

Well, that's politics, isn't it, Chris? This is all about politics and that's why when politicians talk about this, it doesn't have a lot of credibility.  This has been going on in politics for a very long time. Democrats try and defend their own. Republicans try and defend their own. It's a little bit like George Washington warned us 200 years ago. The problem with politics and political parties is they care about winning above all else. Donald Trump cares about a vote in the Senate, no more, no less.

Wallace followed up by wondering what should happen to Moore, and to Senator Al Franken and Representative John Conyers, the longest-serving member of Congress. Franken has apologized for his conduct; Conyers paid a settlement (from his campaign funds) but has denied all of the allegations against him; both are awaiting ethics investigations. Fiorina's response?

Well, first of all, this behavior goes on all the time. It has for a long time, unfortunately. In politics, in the workplace, in athletics, and when we politicize it -- it's not my team vs your team, Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of it. 

I tell you the most helpful thing would be for Congress to change its own process and procedures If someone wants to come forward and allege harassment or abuse in Congress, they must go through a mandatory 30 days of counseling, mandatory mediation led by a lawyer whose express purpose is to protect the institution, and then maybe if they're lucky the get a secret settlement paid for by taxpayers from the Treasury.

That whole process is designed to protect politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, to protect the institution and make it next to impossible for a women, or in some cases a young male page, to come forward. That ought to change, that would actually help.

When Wallace asked if  someone should resign just because there were allegations, Fiorina noted that it isn't just one woman coming forward, it's multiple women. Then, she raised the complicity aspect of so many of these cases.

And I think what's most - I think what we all need to think about, but particularly men need to think about, and in virtually all these cases, people knew. People knew this was going on. You can't tell me that no one knew what was going on with Roy Moore and John Conyers or Al Franken or Charlie Rose or Roger Ailes or Howard Weinstein. People knew. Men knew and women knew.

And so, while we all express outrage now and people say, should they step down or should they not, I think the question going forward is, when are we going to stop tolerating this behavior and respecting the men who do it? Because all of these men have been respected, despite the fact that people knew. 

And, she called on men to stop respecting their peers who do this - because that's the only way anything is going to change.

Men, not most, but enough, abuse their positions of power in return for sex. And what happens is, women step up but men continue, unfortunately, in too many instances to respect the men who are behaving this way. Every single one of the men who has been exposed in the last several weeks has been respected. And so, I think men need to decide, 'I'm not going to respect a man who disrespects women. I'm going to withhold my respect from him, unless he respects others' - that will be a watershed moment.

As you might expect, Fiorina has her own experiences with abusive men, stories of what happened to her or to her friends or coworkers. It's not pretty, as many women can confirm. She described feelings of rage which led to her vowing never to feel that way again.

So, yes, women go through all of these emotions and unfortunately, many of the women who have come forward recently didn't feel they were in a position to confront because the men had power over them, the power of their career, the power of their future. These women, when you watch them come forward, they obviously feel humiliated. They are embarrassed, it's not easy. 

Women have been coming forward for decades. The point of my post (which you can read here) was it to say it's men's turn now.

Wallace closed the interview by asking about Trump's comment about Fiorina, and more recent ones about how wonderful women are and that it's good they're coming forward. Wallace asked her which was the real Donald Trump.

Oh, you know, we could endlessly analyze Donald Trump. What I focus on always is someone's behavior, how do they behave? Are they leading or are they not leading?

I don't think he has (met the test of leadership ) often enough. He won't be the first president to fail the test of leadership, and he won't be the last, unfortunately.

Proving Fiorina's point about politicians talking about sexual harassment not having a lot of credibility was Wallace's next guest, Senator John Thune (R-SD), head of the Republican Conference.

Thune was asked about Trump's tweet, which I shared above, and whether Trump is a disappointment now that he's siding with Moore. Thune's response, in all its glory, is below (with some emphasis added).

Well, I would like to see the president, Chris, come out and support what many of us have said, and that is that Roy Moore needs to step aside, allow somebody else to be a write-in candidate. We can win that seat. 

He is right. If a Democrat wins, it's going to be a vote for the Pelosi-Schumer agenda, which is going to be against tax reform, against constitutional judges, against smart borders. 

But the other alternative is, if Roy Moore wins and he comes into the Senate in January, there's going to immediately be an ethics investigation, which is going to be a cloud that he'll be operating in, and it's going to be a distraction for us and for our agenda. 

So, you know, ultimately the decision's up to the people of Alabama, but it strikes me at least that it would be in their best interest and in the country's best interest, and certainly the best interest of our agenda, if the president would use his influence to try and get Roy Moore to step aside. 

 Notice no mention of the women who came forward? No mention of  Moore's behavior? No mention of not wanting an accused child molester representing the Republican party? No mention of having to serve with someone with Moore's ethical issues, aside from the sex abuse charges?

Nope. Just we, us, our agenda, a distraction, our agenda, our agenda. Fiorina is so right with her assessment.

See you around campus.