Posts Tagged ‘Donald Trump’

h1

Can this election get any weirder?

November 2, 2016

The Washington Post reports on Rachel Maddow’s interview with Libertarian VP candidate Bill Weld yesterday. (I think the headline a little over-the-top but there’s no denying that Gov. Weld’s interview was unusual.)

Libertarian Party VP nominee Bill Weld basically just endorsed Hillary Clinton

He didn’t say it directly, but the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, for all intents and purposes endorsed Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Weld, a former Republican, said he was “vouching” for Clinton and praised her effusively while arguing that the choice between the two major candidates is clear — all while not really vouching for the top of his own ticket, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson.

Weld has been hinting in this direction for weeks, saying nice things about Clinton, warning about Trump and suggesting people choosing between the two should pick Clinton. But at this juncture in the race, the Libertarian Party is struggling to get the 5 percent of the vote that would qualify it for federal matching funds and easier ballot access.

At Reason, Matt Welch reports on the reaction among Libertarians.

Libertarians Denounce Bill Weld

[…] Libertarians of both the capital-L and small-l variety have treated Weld with suspicion ever since (and in fact a decade before) he converted to the party’s cause two weeks before this May’s nominating convention, at which the former Massachusetts squeaked by in a second ballot by the narrowest of margins on the bitterly divided convention floor. Five months of is he/is he not supporting Hillary Clinton later, many of those ideologically disposed to root for the Libertarian ticket have clearly had enough. Though it’s obviously anecdotal, I have never seen libertarian Twitter so nearly unanimous on a close-to-home political issue. […]

I said “nearly unanimous” above; there are some libertarians out there defending Weld today, including Josh Guckert at The Libertarian Republic and a handful of people on Twitter. And I would certainly add to the conversation the suggestion that a Weldless L.P. ticket may never have gotten anywhere near the amount of media interest and poll support without such an Acela corridor-approved wingman.

h1

A tempest in a teacup

October 4, 2016

Not that I have any interest in defending Donald Trump, but the kerfuffle about his tax returns is just more nonsense – maybe partisan nonsense. Here are some good posts about the topic that I came across this week. (My emphasis in the quotes below.)

TL;DR The U.S. tax code recognizes that there’s no reason a business can’t spend more money than it makes in a given year and it provides a way to average taxable income across years.

Megan McArdle at BloombergView:

Trump’s 1995 Return Shows Good Tax Policy at Work

The big news this weekend was the leak of Donald Trump’s 1995 tax returns to the New York Times. The returns showed that in that year, Trump claimed $916 million worth of business losses; those losses, said the Times, “could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.”

Liberal social media dissolved into an ecstatic puddle; conservative social media, at least the part that is supporting Trump, angrily denounced the Times for publishing this tripe.

A few sensible people tried to explain that while the story might have well show that Trump was a bad businessman, it didn’t really show any sort of interesting tax shenanigans. And since we had long known that Trump lost a bunch of money in Atlantic City, a story that has been amply and ably covered by folks like our own Tim O’Brien, it didn’t even really offer much news.

Why did people see scandalous tax avoidance in this case? At issue is the “net operating loss,” an accounting term that means basically what it sounds like: When you net out your expenses against the money you took in, it turns out that you lost a bunch of money. However, in tax law, this has a special meaning, because these NOLs can be offset against money earned in other years. You can use a “carryforward” to offset the losses against income made in future years (as many as 15 future years, under the federal tax law of 1995). You can also use a “carryback” to offset those losses against income you made in past years (three in 1995, which when added to the 15-year carryforward term, gives us the 18 years the Times refers to).

To judge from the reaction on Twitter, this struck many people as a nefarious bit of chicanery. And to be fair, they were probably helped along in this belief by the New York Times description of it, which made it sound like some arcane loophole wedged into our tax code at the behest of the United Association of Rich People and Their Lobbyists. They called it “a tax provision that is particularly prized by America’s dynastic families, which, like the Trumps, hold their wealth inside byzantine networks of partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations.”

Every tax or financial professional I have heard from about the New York Times piece found this characterization rather bizarre. The Times could have just as truthfully written that the provision was “particularly prized by America’s small businesses, farmers and authors,” many of whom depend on the NOL to ensure that they do not end up paying extraordinary marginal tax rates — possibly exceeding 100 percent — on income that may not fit itself neatly into the regular rotation of the earth around the sun. […]

Warren Meyer at Coyoteblog:

Yes, Let’s Make Entrepreneurship and Business Formation Even Harder

Well, it looks like the awesome team of Trump and Clinton may manage to take yet another shot at reducing entrepreneurship. It’s all a result of the report that the Donald had a nearly billion dollar tax loss decades ago, and that – gasp – this tax loss might have shielded his income from taxes for years. Hillary’s supporters are already demanding changes to the tax code and Trump, as usual, cannot muster an intelligent defense on even a moderately technical topic.

As someone who built a business over 10 years, I can’t think of anything that would do more to screw up the already languishing rate of new business formation than to somehow limit the deductability of business losses on future years’ taxes. […]

Dan Mitchell at International Liberty:

Trump, Tax Reform, and the Media-Generated Faux Controversy over “Net Operating Losses”

Because of his support for big government, I don’t like Donald Trump. Indeed, I have such disdain for him (as well as Hillary Clinton) that I’ve arranged to be out of the country when the election takes place.

The establishment media, by contrast, is excited about the election and many journalists are doing everything possible to aid the election of Hillary Clinton. In some cases, their bias leads to them to make silly pronouncements on public policy in hopes of undermining Trump. Which irks me since I’m then in the unwanted position of accidentally being on the same side as “The Donald.”

For instance, some of Trump’s private tax data was leaked to the New York Times, which breathlessly reported that he had a huge loss in 1995, and that he presumably used that “net operating loss” (NOL) to offset income in future years.

As I pointed out in this interview, Trump did nothing wrong based on the information we now have. Nothing morally wrong. Nothing legally wrong. Nothing economically wrong. […]

In other words, this is not a controversy. Or it shouldn’t be. […]

I’m ignoring the fact that Trump could have managed this whole kazish much better by releasing tax return info last summer – 5 months before the election rather than 5 weeks before.

And I won’t speculate about whether Trump may have gamed the system for his losses. I don’t know him or his businesses well enough to guess about that.

h1

Say no more, Donald. Say no more…

June 28, 2016

The good news is that Donald Trump has finally spouted enough nonsense that I can tune him out completely with the knowledge I won’t be missing anything worthwhile. He’s said something so incredibly obtuse that he’s hit the firewall: no more packets allowed from that address.

Here’s a report about a recent Trump speech in Pennsylvania.

Donald Trump targets globalization and free trade as job-killers

MONESSEN, Pa. — While attacking Hillary Clinton and other career politicians, Donald Trump took aim Tuesday at two other prominent election targets: globalization and free trade.

“Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy … but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache,” Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.

In a speech devoted to what he called “How To Make America Wealthy Again,” Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called “failed trade policies” — including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary. […]

Trump’s remarks on free trade are pretty unequivocal evidence he should never be president. He shouldn’t even be mayor of a major U.S. city. Dogcatcher? Maybe.

The man would be a positive danger to the global economy. And as economic questions go, so go political questions. See Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act if you need an historical reminder.

Mr. "Art of the Deal" thinks the global economy is a zero sum game? Bzzt! Sorry, Don, but the 18th century is long gone, my man.

Mr. "Think Big and Kick Ass" supposes he has a better handle on NAFTA than Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Clinton – plus, of course, the U.S. House and Senate? He’s ready to reverse the Republican party’s policy of 30-plus years?

Yeah, right… what a maroon. Not meaning to insult anybody, but I sincerely hope that no one I know votes for Trump.

Somebody should send Mr.Trump a copy of The Wealth of Nations – or, better yet, read it aloud to him to make sure he hears it.

Maybe there’s an illustrated version that he’d understand.


Let’s Make the Constitution Great Again!

h1

What she said

January 5, 2016

Mollie Hemingway vents about the Trump phenomenon. She makes some good points and is fairly amusing, so RTWT.

When It Comes To Donald Trump, I Hate Everyone
I hate Donald Trump, people who love Donald Trump, people who hate Donald Trump, and media who cover Donald Trump.

We’re now in month eight or so of Trumpmania. He has a core of support, and the media can’t get enough of him. The effect he has on people is fascinating. But it’s also remarkably annoying. Every casual utterance by Trump leads the news cycle until the subsequent outrage. And everyone flips out. Trump flips out. His fans flip out. His enemies flip out. The media flip out.

It’s enough to make you hate everyone. In fact, it does make me hate everyone. That probably includes you. Here’s a list of everyone in the Trump saga who is awful. […]

h1

Another spoiler

September 16, 2015

I’ve dropped most of this op-ed in the quote below but if you want to know why Donald Trump is a blight on the political scene (for any party) read the whole thing. It’s brief and you don’t need to be a Republican to appreciate his points.

I think Mr. Gabriel puts his finger on the issue in his final line.

The Debate We Were Supposed to Have

The 2016 election was the grand battle conservatives had been hoping for since Ronald Reagan left the Oval Office. The roster of candidates was to be a who’s-who of smart, proven, center-right leadership. […]

It would be obvious to the electorate that Republicans were the only party with the vision, with the heart, and with the intelligence to lead the nation. […]

We aren’t discussing America’s $18.4 trillion national debt and our insolvent social programs. The stagnant economy and an expansionist China, Russia, and Islamic State. Burning cities at home and burning countries abroad.

Instead we’re trading GIFs of a reality show star on “The Tonight Show,” giggling about menstruation, and wondering if the most impressive GOP field in a generation are a bunch of “dummies” or if they’re a bunch of “losers.”

These are serious times. We are not a serious people.

It continues to amaze me how people continue to talk about Trump as though he were worthy of their time and consideration. Pfft!

%d bloggers like this: