Thoughts On Pebble Mine After 6 Classes

I've been to six of the planned eight OLÉ classes on Pebble Mine. Here's my sense of this mega project to extract copper, gold, molybdenum, and other metals in a remote area adjacent to the world's largest salmon fishery.


1.  Obsession:   Anyone who wants to undertake a project of this scope in the United States has to be an obsessive gambler. The amount of time and effort it takes to get all the permits, to get to the site, to put in infrastructure, to put in all the safety procedures, to woo the local communities, and to so raw mining and then to clean up everything is enormous.   I suspect that for some people this is a challenge, like climbing the peaks of the world's highest mountains.  I imagine for all who undertake such projects, the promise of great riches is a key factor.  And apparently, getting a project along a certain part of the way, means the project can then be sold to someone else.  And I'm not exactly sure who's money is at risk and what sort of tax benefits some may get out of losses in a project like this.
For example here are some of the Pebble Mine presentation slides that show a sense of the enormous scope of the project without getting into minutiae:

They have to process such enormous amounts of ore because the amount of valuable minerals is a tiny fraction.

This is just the site for the current 20 year planned mine.  There's a much richer ore deposit to the east of this, but it's buried under bedrock and harder to get at.  No one seems to believe that this project is going to end after 20 years.  That's just the point where they will begin this process over again to then go after the rest of the ore.

2. Complexity.  There is no one person who has the knowledge and experience to be able to assimilate all the data in order to make a yes or no decision on a project like this.  There's way too much technical data from too many different areas.  We've been told about tests of chemical reactions, groundwater studies, surface water studies, acidity, toxicity, bulk tailings and pyritic tailings,  porphyry intrusions, how copper affects salmon's ability to smell, the many federal and state regulations, and  growing demand for copper in green economy,

Here's an overview of the Baseline Study - an attempt to document the existing conditions.  Who is really going to read 30,000 pages?

3.  Many Decisions.   There isn't just one decision.  There are many permits and approvals to get - some of which can stop the project.

On the left are the US Army Corps of Engineers authorities.  On the right are other federal laws. (clicking on any of the images will enlarge and focus them)

And there are approvals and permits needed from Alaska.

And here are all the groups involved in the Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact.

Although we got charts showing the decision making process, no one ever said who exactly makes the final decision.  Is it just one person?  Or several people?  We still have two more sessions so I can ask next week.  (I'll miss the last session, unfortunately.)

4. Risk.   In fact, this is NOT a technical decision. Ultimately it's a decision about risk.  How much risk is there and is that risk worth the possible consequences?  It's about the level of comfort with risk the decision maker has.  There isn't just one risk, but many.  At the extreme is the potentially catastrophic consequence of destroying the salmon in Bristol Bay.  McNeil River bears are also nearby.  Then there are the possibilities of lesser impacts on the salmon and other parts of the environment around the mine site.  On the other side are the benefits, which the Pebble folks identified as employment for local people and the importance of copper in the new green environment.  And, of course, the hundreds of millions of potential profit.

Here are some slides from the presentation of Bristol Bay Native Corporation which opposes the mine:

And this slide from the Pebble Mine folks:

5.  Ultimately It's A Values Based Decision.  Aside from the decision maker(s) comfort with and exposure to risk in this situation, this all boils down to two opposing world views:

1. The United States is based on individual freedom and capitalism which allow, even encourage, individuals and corporations to go out and exploit the world's God given natural resources to become rich and make the general economy better
2. Human beings are part of nature, not APART from nature.  Humans have been exploiting the planet and now it has reached the point that human caused climate change will make life and survival for humans and most other species of life much harder.

6.  The Decision.   The decision on Pebble will probably be determined not so much by all the technical details that are being presented, but by where on the spectrum between World Views #1 and #2  the decision maker(s) sit.


7.  Money.  As I review all this, I realize that one important aspect* of the Pebble Mine project has not been discussed in the class - how the project is being financed.  I made the assumption in #1 above that this was a gamble.  But bits of conversation after class with presenters makes me question that.  At one point I made a comment about Northern Dynasty (the company that has been at the lead in this project) and someone said, they won't be the ones who actually carry all this out.  They will be sold out.  So I have questions about how a deal like this is put together.    Who actually has money at risk?  Who is investing in this?  What are their motives?  How much of the expenses of doing all the preparation costs are only paper losses?

These all boil down to who is actually risking how much money and what do they stand to gain?  To what extent do tax payers end up underwriting this because of tax deductions for business expenses or tax offsets for losses?

*Of course there are other important aspects that haven't been discussed that I haven't yet thought of, I'm sure.

"If we want more stability in state services, there’s a simple answer"

That was the title of an ADN editorial board editorial Sunday.  

First and most obvious, if there were a simple answer it would have been found long ago.  There are no simple answers in politics or government (which are not the same things, though they overlap.)

So what is that simple answer according to the editorial board?

After listing numerous shortfall's in this year's budget, they tell us:

"There’s also a simple solution that would go far toward helping restore that stability: Honesty in the budgeting process."

I agree that honesty in the budget process is helpful for the public to understand what's going on.  But is it simple?  Hell no.

First, the budget has to account for billions of dollars, so it's going to be long and complicated no matter what.  But sure, there are ways to make it easier to follow or harder to follow.
Second, the politicians - the governor and the legislators - who are trying to please constituents and funders with rewards that might not be appreciated by most, try to hide those items.   Questionable special favor allocations or cuts are well hidden in rows and columns of numbers that are hard to comprehend.
Third,  in these times of ideological warfare, many items will come under attack no matter how good they are for the general public.  Either they're ideologically unacceptable for one side or the other, or they might appear as a 'win' for one side and loss for the other.
These are just a few reasons why achieving a transparent budget is NOT simple.

Let's move on to the third paragraph of the editorial:

 "Sometimes, as with the senior benefits program, speedier processing of benefit applications results in more people than expected joining a program, draining funds more quickly. But failing to foresee scenarios like that - or deal with them swiftly when they arise - is a failure of leadership. Like not considering prices below $60 per barrel of oil as a realistic possibility for tax purposes, as happened before the 2014 price slump, failing to recognize or plan for the possibility of an uptick in benefit recipients is an indictment of our elected and appointed representatives."

OK, usually people are complaining that government doesn't act fast enough.  But when they do, they get criticized too.  Are they saying that by getting eligible people into the program quickly, the cost is too high?  If so, it's one of the few times I've seen government criticized for doing too good a job.

Let's look at the failure of leadership comment.

"But failing to foresee scenarios like that - or deal with them swiftly"   

Government is not a business where the CEO has the final say.  In a democratic government, decision making power is divided in different ways.  Broad policy making is supposed to be reserved for elected officials and their helpers, the high level appointed officials.  Career public servants are then asked to fill in the mechanical details of,  and then carry out, the policies.

But it's more complicated than that.  Power is split between the governor's office and the legislature (and, if needed, the courts.)  But the legislature is further split between the Senate and the House.  And each of those bodies is split between Republicans and Democrats and a few independents.

Leadership in such a situation isn't easy.  What's needed is peacemakers, maybe even therapists, as much as leaders.  But how do you make peace with people who see you as the enemy and whose supporters (voters and funders) tell them not to compromise?

In contrast, a marriage is simple.  There are only two policy makers and possibly some subjects of the policy (children.)  Often in a marriage, one of the two policy makers dominates the other.  Occasionally, the two work together in harmony.  But frequently they fight and disagree on everything.

Ask any divorce attorney how 'simple' it is to get angry spouses to work out the settlement of their property, and custody of the kids, even of the dog.


Then the editorial talks about oil tax credits.

 "they’re a classic example of the state’s destabilizing tendency to make a promise and then leave those who make plans based on that promise holding the bag, making residents wary and businesses disinclined to make investments in Alaska."

And to not look partisan, the editorial suggests the administration oughtn't renege on the two year school funding or senior benefits.

But this is the nature of a two year legislature that cannot commit funds beyond their two year session. (And since the new session just began, last year's commitments aren't law.)  It's also the nature of the power of large corporations to extract benefits from a legislature it paid for (in campaign contributions, in propaganda campaigns, and strong arm lobbying.)

When a commitment is made against the strong objections of the minority, then when that minority gets more power, that commitment will be challenged.  The oil companies have been telling Alaskans for years how they're going to pick up and leave if they don't get their way.  Well, either they've been bluffing or they've been getting their way.   [Figuring out comparative tax regimes is even more opaque than the Alaska budget.  Here's a long essay on whether Alaska oil taxes are fair by King Economics Group.  Unfortunately it doesn't compare our taxes to those of other oil producing states and countries.   And, it turns out, Ed King, according to his LinkedIn page,  has been Alaska's Chief Economist since Dunleavy took control in December 2018.    This ISER report also is focused only on in-state.   This OPEC comparison of oil taxes isn't about the industry taxes, but taxes at the pump. Finally, this ADN article says ConocoPhillips' Alaska region is its most profitable by far.  But that's not the point of this post, but I didn't want to make a statement without some backup.]

In the last paragraph, the ADN comes to its conclusion.

"So what’s the better answer? Make the hard choices — fund services fully or be up-front about the fact that they’ve been cut — instead of kicking the can down the road."

So, now they seem to be acknowledging that the 'simple' answer is really a 'hard choice.'  They don't talk about who has been kicking that can.  About the Republicans being in power for most of the last ten years when the budget kept going up, or how the Democrats have been trying to raise revenues with income or sales taxes, but the Republicans continue to block that.

Their simple isn't simple.  It's pap.

Here's a headline that caught my eye several years ago.

"For GOP presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina, solving the nation’s biggest challenges is pretty simple — “it’s not rocket science,” as she likes to say."

Here was my response:  Note To Carly Fiorina: Solving Nation's Problems Harder Than Rocket Science  It delves into other aspects of the difficulty of good government.

Tax, Snaps, Nast, And Terminal N -New Addition, And A Funny

I'm trying to finish up tax stuff to take to the accountant so he knows how much of a check we need to send in with our extension.  I hate doing this.  Not because I don't want to pay my taxes, but it's just so tedious.  I'd so love just a percentage of income, no deductions, get rid of all this crazy paperwork.  It would be much fairer to everyone and corporations wouldn't be able to get tax deductions when their employees travel first class and stay in fancy resorts on business and they can deduct legal expenses, though the citizens suing them as individuals cannot.

I've got about ten draft posts waiting for reviewing and editing, but I need to get the taxes out by tomorrow, so here are a few pics.  No serious reading.  Oh, and one joke I saw on Twitter.  (Yes, Twitter is an incredible boon to procrastinators.)

I planted some snapdragon seeds before we left for San Francisco and carefully covered them in plastic so they wouldn't dry out while we were gone and now they are up.  Hoping to show you beautiful flowers in a few months.

And nasturtiums too.

When we got off the plane in Seattle on the way home Thursday, I was confused.  I knew we were in Terminal N, but nothing looked right.  I should have been suspicious already when we pulled up to Gate 18.  Terminal N didn't have 18 gates.  

Well, now it does.  The new edition is now open.  You can see the (is seamly the opposite of seamless) gap between the old and new parts of the the terminal.  Dark floor is the old.   The train still doesn't go to Terminal C yet.  

I almost forgot the joke.  Well, maybe it's for real, but it's funny

I was applying for Australian citizenship and the interviewer asked " Do you have any criminal history?"

I said "No, is that still required?"

— Kevin Carter (@wapimaskwa69) April 6, 2019

"The legislature now has a balanced budget before them THEY now can decide priorities of the budget. My administration is agnostic on this."

A short one today, I hope.  Some reactions to the governor's letter to the university community.

"The previous administration burned through nearly every dollar in the state's savings account."

Actually, he wanted to increase revenues with appropriate taxes but the Republican controlled Senate banned the word taxes.  And he did cut the budget each year.  But rather than destroying the state, the way your budget will, he got some money from the PFD account (lowering the checks) and from savings accounts.  You, governor, also refuse to consider increasing revenues.  That's a serious problem.

 "While some wish to ignore Alaskans and propose billion-dollar taxes and PFD grabs, I've made clear that this is out of line with the core beliefs of most Alaskans."

Whether it's out of line with people's core beliefs, I can't say. If that's true, you're saying the core beliefs of most Alaskans are:  we want our services and our free oil money, but we refuse to pay for any of it.   Taxes are certainly NOT against the core beliefs of most educated Alaskans who understand the numbers and the impacts these proposed cuts will have and who understand that there are some things - like roads, police, schools, public health - that are a much better bargain for a society if the public pools their money (as in taxes) to buy collectively.  Yeah, some with lots of money can buy private security guards and send their kids to private schools, but society as a whole needs everyone to get a decent education.  Only con artists benefit from an uneducated public.

And those who believed Dunleavy's campaign promises that he'd balance the budget and pay out the old PFD cuts and keep the state running - they desperately need  good education and mental health systems.

"The legislature now has a balanced budget before them  THEY now can decide priorities of the budget.  My administration is agnostic on this."  

As strategy, I guess this is a good move on the governor's part.  He's basically saying, I've balanced the budget and the legislature can decide on where to cut.  They'll get the blame, he hopes.  But really, to tell the university they can work out with the legislature where to cut is like telling your kids, "Hey, here's 50 cents, go buy yourself dinner.  I'm agnostic about what you eat, but just keep it within our budget."  You can't buy dinner for 50 cents and you can't run a university on 40% of last year's budget.  It's a disaster for years to come.   (Dermot Cole has already addressed the governor's claim that it's only 17%.)

I don't know who's helping the governor do all this.  Well aside from Donna Arduin.  Or if he really thinks - "the sky won't fall" because government is bloated.  This is like not believing in gravity.

I once asked my students - as we discussed ontology - if the University was real?  They all agreed it was.  I argued it was just something that people made up. And they could make it up into something entirely different.   That the state could decide to sell all the buildings to some company and they could call it whatever they wanted and the university simply wouldn't exist any more.

But that was a philosophical argument to make a point about the nature of reality.  It seems our governor is trying to prove my point.   Some people will die.  Others will suffer needlessly because of the cuts this budget requires.  Even if the legislature restores half the cuts.

In a letter to the editor the other day, someone wrote this was simply the governor's opening gambit of a chess game.  There is no opening gambit in chess that compares to this.  Well, there's one - knocking over the board and all the pieces.

What the governor does have going for him is that his letter is in good English, it's polite, and if you don't know anything about the situation, it might sound reasonable.

“Padre, you just got to stay out of politics,” he recalled the speaker saying.

As I'm sure you all know, Paul Ryan fired the House's chaplain - a Roman Catholic priest, Father Conroy.

The title quote and quotes below come from a New York Times article that points to the prayer that is said to have caused Ryan's remark (in this post's title.)  Apparently he was miffed by this comment about the Republican tax plan that Ryan helped pushed through:

 “May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.”

This focuses on a key difference between the Catholic interpretations of the bible and many Protestant interpretations which talk about work as being a divine calling and the importance of self reliance.

But as I read the quote, I couldn't help but think about what Ryan probably really meant by the word 'politics.'  I think he meant don't take positions that challenge my positions.  Surely, if the Father had spoken about saving fetuses from abortion (as political a topic as you could want, and one consistent with the Catholic church's beliefs) Ryan wouldn't have been upset at all.

 Merriam Webster's online dictionary's first definition of political is:

"of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government" 

How could a Congressional chaplain say anything of relevance that would not be political?  Even if the chaplain's job is purely ceremonial, there's no way a chaplain can say anything without it being interpreted as political by someone.

The article goes on to discuss simmering tension between Catholics and Evangelical Christians in the House.

"The controversy was heightened when Representative Mark Walker, Republican of North Carolina and a Baptist minister, said Thursday in an interview with The Hill newspaper that he hoped the next chaplain of the House might come from a nondenominational church tradition who could relate to members with wives and children.
Catholic Democrats quickly called his remarks anti-Catholic, as Catholic priests are celibate . . ."

The Times article also offers another explanation for the firing - that the Chaplain wasn't carrying out his pastoral duties satisfactorily.  It also suggests this was one more Republican 'unforced error' that would help Democrats in the November election.  I don't know about that.  There are so many things that will influence whether and how voters vote.  Add this to the list.

Warren Buffett's Complaint About The New Tax Code

In his letter to his shareholders this February, Buffett began with a side note about how the new tax code affects Berkshire Hathaway's profit and how Berkshire Hathaway presents its financial standing. First he says that BH made $29 billion, not from what they did, but what Congress did.

Second, he thinks it distorts things and his company will strive to provide information that makes it easier for people to get a more accurate picture.  This came out in late February, but I only just became aware of it.  In his own words:

Berkshire’s gain in net worth during 2017 was $65.3 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 23%. Over the last 53 years (that is, since present management took over), per- share book value has grown from $19 to $211,750, a rate of 19.1% compounded annually.*
The format of that opening paragraph has been standard for 30 years. But 2017 was far from standard: A large portion of our gain did not come from anything we accomplished at Berkshire.
The $65 billion gain is nonetheless real – rest assured of that. But only $36 billion came from Berkshire’s operations. The remaining $29 billion was delivered to us in December when Congress rewrote the U.S. Tax Code. (Details of Berkshire’s tax-related gain appear on page K-32 and pages K-89 – K-90.)
After stating those fiscal facts, I would prefer to turn immediately to discussing Berkshire’s operations. But, in still another interruption, I must first tell you about a new accounting rule – a generally accepted accounting principle (GAAP) – that in future quarterly and annual reports will severely distort Berkshire’s net income figures and very often mislead commentators and investors.
The new rule says that the net change in unrealized investment gains and losses in stocks we hold must be included in all net income figures we report to you. That requirement will produce some truly wild and capricious swings in our GAAP bottom-line. Berkshire owns $170 billion of marketable stocks (not including our shares of Kraft Heinz), and the value of these holdings can easily swing by $10 billion or more within a quarterly reporting period. Including gyrations of that magnitude in reported net income will swamp the truly important numbers that describe our operating performance. For analytical purposes, Berkshire’s “bottom-line” will be useless.
The new rule compounds the communication problems we have long had in dealing with the realized gains (or losses) that accounting rules compel us to include in our net income. In past quarterly and annual press releases, we have regularly warned you not to pay attention to these realized gains, because they – just like our unrealized gains – fluctuate randomly.
That’s largely because we sell securities when that seems the intelligent thing to do, not because we are trying to influence earnings in any way. As a result, we sometimes have reported substantial realized gains for a period when our portfolio, overall, performed poorly (or the converse).
*All per-share figures used in this report apply to Berkshire’s A shares. Figures for the B shares are 1/1500th of those shown for the A shares.
3
With the new rule about unrealized gains exacerbating the distortion caused by the existing rules applying to realized gains, we will take pains every quarter to explain the adjustments you need in order to make sense of our numbers. But televised commentary on earnings releases is often instantaneous with their receipt, and newspaper headlines almost always focus on the year-over-year change in GAAP net income. Consequently, media reports sometimes highlight figures that unnecessarily frighten or encourage many readers or viewers.
We will attempt to alleviate this problem by continuing our practice of publishing financial reports late on Friday, well after the markets close, or early on Saturday morning. That will allow you maximum time for analysis and give investment professionals the opportunity to deliver informed commentary before markets open on Monday. Nevertheless, I expect considerable confusion among shareholders for whom accounting is a foreign language.
At Berkshire what counts most are increases in our normalized per-share earning power. That metric is what Charlie Munger, my long-time partner, and I focus on – and we hope that you do, too. Our scorecard for 2017 follows.

I get the general drift of this, though this is not an area have any particular expertise.  What I'm most interested in is why the new tax bill has changed the reporting process and who it hurts and who it harms.  But as I searched for people commenting on Buffett's letter, I haven't been able to find answers to my questions.

Here's one that gets into things a little deeper:

Tax Bill's Effect On Reported Earnings - How Big A Deal? 

My gut tells me that there will be plenty of surprises that pop up over the year.  Little gifts to individual corporations that were well disguised - say with qualifications for a benefit that basically are aimed at one company (though there may be others like it who will also get benefits.) And there will be lots of unintended consequences that no one foresaw because of the speed with which this bill was passed.

Tried Out My Bike Today - Conditions Were Better Than Expected And It Felt Great

It was brilliantly sunny, though the temps are back closer to normal.  Warm enough in the afternoon that there was water from melting snow and ice.  I wasn't sure how far the conditions would be ice-free and deep-puddle free, but I thought I go exploring.

Soon I found myself out on Dowling looking at the Chugach.

Then coming back on Elmore, I had a view from the first bridge of the dog mushing trail.

A little further and I was over the southern fork (I think) of Campbell Creek.

The next bridge gave me a view of my second moose since we got back to Anchorage last week.

As I said, for the most part the trail was ice free.  There'd been one spot where a thick chunk was floating over a puddle, but there was a bit of room to go around it.  But then, almost home, I got to this hard packed ice near Providence.

I know, there are people who ride all winter and deal with this sort of thing all the time.  But I was away a lot of the winter and didn't get studs for my tires.  And a couple of years ago around this time I found myself flat on my face, hard, after hitting a small patch of ice I didn't even see.  So I navigate this stuff carefully.

It wasn't a long ride - maybe three miles - and I didn't go fast - I have a back fender but not a front one and didn't want to get too wet.  But it felt great.  And I'm guessing those hilly rides on Bainbridge made a difference.  The much more modest hills today seemed like nothing.

Then it was back to filling out tax information.  Really, I'd vote for a candidate who pushed for a much simplified tax code, one that didn't require people to hire someone to do their taxes for them.  A progressive tax with no deductions - except maybe for folks on the poor end who'd had a catastrophic event.  The tax rate could be modest then because people would actually pay that rate, especially those with much higher incomes.

I have to admit that these pictures make it look like I live in the wilderness.  We have lots of urban wilderness of sorts, but I didn't take pictures of the more urban parts I passed.  Maybe next time.  I even passed a Walgreens and a YMCA.

Unintended Consequences

Two of our current president's goals are to lower immigration and renegotiate NAFTA and he just got a tax bill that greatly reduces taxes for corporations and the wealthy.

But in this world everything is interrelated.  NPR reported a drop in the Mexican peso.

"The fear south of the border is that with corporate taxes lower in the U.S., Mexico won't look as attractive to businesses. A possible drop in foreign investment here sent the peso tumbling this week to its lowest level in nearly 10 months. Mexico's central bank tried to perk up the peso by selling off an additional $500 million in a foreign currency auction. The tactic usually gives the peso a boost, but there was no such rally this time."

If unemployment in Mexico rises and the value of the peso drops, there will be much greater incentive for unemployed Mexicans to come to the US and work for US dollars that they can send back home where their value will be much greater than working for pesos.

LA Poster Edged - Comics, Costco Liquor, Burmese Halal, and Skateboards

It seemed like the comic store would like better after a Photoshop poster edge filter was applied.  And then it seemed the whole day would look better that way.  I'd note they had 20-40% off on all the graphic novels.  I'm enjoying The Last Man credited to Brian K. Vaughan, writer; Pia Guerra, penciller; José Marzán, Jr., inker on the cover, and inside Pamela Rambo, colorist, and Clem Roberts, letterer.  I'm sure it will get its own post.




The filter did enhance it the store, but the poster edge filter not obvious in this photo.







Again, it's not obvious to the average person in this shot of a couple of graphic novels.  But look close at the wood and the background.

But you should be able to notice the effect on our lunch at a Burmese/Indian Halal restaurant, called Jasmine, on Sepulveda near Washington.

The Costco liquor department had some eye-popping prices.  Maybe I'm not looking carefully in Anchorage where the liquor department is separate from the rest of the store and I don't usually go in.  In this Costco it's right in the middle of everything else.



















And this Saturday afternoon's shot at the Venice Beach Skateboard Park also seemed to be begging to be poster edged.


[As you can tell, I'm avoiding more current event posts for a bit.  Not because I don't think they're important and not because I don't feel strongly about the issues.  But it takes time to say something that everyone else isn't saying and that is also useful.  Like how to at least make Lisa Murkowski feel a tinge of guilt as she votes for the 500 plus page so called tax reform bill that she and others really won't read first that surely includes all sorts of hidden gifts and thefts will only learn about later.  Though reporters say things like "most people will get a tax cut until the middle income tax cuts expire in five years,"  what they don't say is that other costs - health care, child care, insurance, and countless other necessities - will go up and people will pay more on those things than they will gain in their tax cuts.]

"the discrepancy has been resolved"

It's hard not to blog, but the stuff I'm working on is using that part of the brain that I would blog with, but I can't blog it.  Yet.

Check out my favorites in the tab above in the mean time.  (Or see previous post.)

But here's a little follow up of something long ago.

I wrote last year, June, that the income tax problems from my mom's estate - really it was about the tax withheld from her caregiver's checks - was resolved.  And I got letters to that account and refund checks.

But this was zombie resolution and it came back this May.  They Social Security records didn't match the IRS records.  I'd sent all that information in once already, but I sent it again.

Today I got a new resolution letter.

I would remind people, as I did in the post last year, that a lot of the trouble here is due to continuous cuts to the IRS budget.  They simply don't have the people to keep up with all this.  And the people who get screwed are the small fry.  The really rich guys and corporations have lawyers who can run circles around a tax bill forever.  And that's true for all the other agencies that protect the public health, the environment, worker safety, and on and on and on.  Corporations know if government isn't properly funded, regulators can't come out and regulate them.  And they can get away with murder.

Lists Are Good

I made a list today and did most of the things on it.

Some are done:

• I copied some pages from The Camp of the Saints √ - a book supposedly on Steve Bannon's must-read list.  The library was saying I couldn't renew it.  I'd been taking notes, for a blog post, but I just couldn't finish it.  Partly because it's so disgusting.  Partly because I was reading it carefully so I could blog about.  Copying pages I'd put into my notes means I can find the quotes I want when I'm ready to post about it.  I then took it and three other books back to the library.√  
• I got the hoses out in the front√ and the back√.  Washed down the chaise lounge (not on the list, but should have been), and watered the flower beds in front√ and some in back√.  I also swept the cottonwood catkins off the deck twice.  (That wasn't on the list).  
• I picked up the seedlings we'd left with friends while we were gone.√  
• I called a couple of folks ☐☐ about things I need to do, but I had to leave messages, so they're still hanging.  (I use those little boxes to mark things I did, but didn't get completed.  I'd made the calls, but had to leave messages.  So not really settled.)
• I recorded a statement for an insurance company about an accident I witnessed Wednesday afternoon in Alameda, California.  Our friends were showing us this little island in San Francisco Bay that used to have a navy and army base.  We heard a bang.  Across the street a car had pulled out of a parking space and hit a car that was passing by.  I left my card with the driver of the car that was hit and told him I'd seen it if he needed a witness.  The insurance company called.  I realized, as she asked me questions, how little I had paid attention.  I'd focused on the key aspects - the fact that car had pulled out and hit a passing car - but I couldn't tell her what street it was, what kind of cars were involved.  That wasn't on my list either.  
• I didn't call the IRS, but I called my mother's accountant √ to let him know I'd gotten a letter saying there was a discrepancy in her 2014 income taxes.  That was the year that deductions for the caregiver got messed up and it took me over a year of monthly phone calls to the IRS and help from the Alaska IRS ombudsman to clear things up.  I didn't call the IRS because I couldn't find all the forms from that year.  I'd finally put them away, thinking that horror was behind me.  Apparently it isn't.  Calling the IRS was on the list.  Instead I went through files looking for the forms and instead I found other stuff that had been dumped in the file cabinet.  Sorting that stuff wasn't on the list.  

Lists do focus me and tend to keep me from forgetting all the things I'm supposed to do.  And from getting distracted with things not on the list.  And checking things off the list is a good feeling.  I get to see all that one did in a day and don't feel that I totally wasted the day.  Getting a blog post up wasn't on the list.  Maybe I thought I'd have the Camp of The Saints post ready.  No, I knew that would take longer.

The Alaska Income Tax Lottery Proposal

Yesterday's Alaska Dispatch had these two front page headlines:

1.  Senate wants raffle to help pay for education
2.  Senate gets income tax bill from the House

Note:  The online headlines are a little different from the ones in the actual newspaper.  Also there were other front page headlines as well, like this one:  "Prospective musk ox farmers face some huge hurdles"

So, the gist is this:

The Alaska State House, controlled by a Democratic led majority has proposed to deal with Alaska's budget deficits with a plan that includes budget cuts AND revenue increases, including resurrecting the income tax that was abolished after the oil money started flowing into Juneau, back in 1980.

But the Republican led State Senate has a severe allergy to the word taxes that causes them to break out in a basic services cutting delirium when the word taxes, particularly income taxes, is mentioned.  BUT, a raffle is something they can get behind.

I'd note that I proposed a similar idea back in 2015: (it's near the bottom of the post)

"As I'm thinking about this, I bet Alaskans would be willing to add a lottery twist to the PFD.  I bet we'd be willing to lower the average payout if there was a chance to win some really big prize money for a few who are randomly selected.  I bet most Alaskans would give up 10% of their check for the chance to win $100,000."  

Income Tax Lottery

But there's another proposal I've been pushing for years.  Back in March 2011 I argued that we should tie a lottery into a) our income taxes and b) voting.  Here's an excerpt from that post which started with a story about adding a lottery component to radar speeding cameras to reward people who were driving the speed limit as well as ticketing speeders:

"So, for a long time I've thought we should use techniques similar to the speeding lottery to encourage other behaviors we want people to do.  Here are two examples:

1.    Income Tax Lottery: Your lottery ticket is your income tax form.  There need to be lots of winners here - maybe one big win nationally, one smaller win per state, and lots oflittle wins.  There might even be fewer and less lucrative prizes for people who file late.  I'm sure this would increase the number of filers, and the cost of the prizes would be less than the increase in tax revenues."

That old post was based on the concept of 'gamifying' or 'gamification.'  Here's a post from the gamification blog that talks about using games to make citizen participation more interesting.  NPR had done a report on using speeding radar cameras used to get speeders and red light runners to also reward people driving the speed limit.  Everyone driving at or below the speed limit would be entered into a lottery and could win prizes.  


The Obvious Compromise

So, if the Democrats want an income tax and the Republicans want a raffle, the obvious answer is to add a lottery into the income tax.  There would be a couple of big prizes and a lot of smaller ones - like getting double your income tax back.  That way, the wealthy who pay more income tax, stand to win more.  That should please the Republicans.  And if you pay no taxes, you aren't eligible.  

What Does "Pay Their Fair Share" Mean?

Alaska's budget is about $4 billion short.  The legislature is battling to balance the budget.

Republicans, pretty much, want to do it by cutting the budget.
Democrats say it's been cut to the bone over the last couple of years and that revenue needs to be raised.

In a recent blog post I quoted a letter to the editor which called on teachers to take a pay cut to preserve their colleagues' jobs.   I pointed out that it seemed unfair for only teachers to take a pay cut.  Everyone benefits from kids getting a good education.  Everyone should take a pay cut.  And that there was a way already set to do this, and it was done in most other states.  It's called an income tax.

I, of course, knew that this term is like blasphemy to conservatives, particularly to wealthy ones.

Oliver, who comments here once in a while, suggested, in a comment to that post, that we have a sales tax instead.  After a discussion about all the people who would not pay an income tax, including those who make less than $14,000, Oliver concluded that:

"Not what I would call fair or everyone paying their fair share."

I took some time to think about and respond to his comment.  When I tried to post my comment, there was a problem and it wouldn't post there.  I had thought about making it all a new post, but figured the discussion should stay with the original post and comment.  Then I tried again and it said my comment was too many words.  So I'm making this a new post.  You can see the old one and Oliver's comment in full here.

My response:

1.  For the sake of this discussion, I'll just accept the numbers that Oliver offered.  I agree in general principle that as many people should pay the tax as possible.  I would point out that as of 2016, there were 198,617 residents 18 or under, many of whom would live in families that paid an income tax.

2.  It's long been understood that a sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning the poor pay a larger percent of their income in sales tax, and that it 'hurts' them far more than it 'hurts' wealthier people.  Even if wealthier people pay more in sales taxes.  I won't go through that argument here.  That link also discusses the reasons for a progressive tax, like most income taxes, in which higher income people pay a higher percentage of their income. (Assuming there aren't enough loopholes to make the higher rates moot.)

So I would just like to focus here on the idea of "everyone paying their fair share."  More particularly, on the underlying assumption of that.



The Problem Of The Work Ethic In The 21st Century World

The work ethics that most Americans can quote goes something like this:  hard work and diligence are morally good.  There are some corollary assumptions:

• that if you work hard, you will do well
• wealth is the result of hard work
• poverty is the result of laziness

  reminds us that work wasn't always seen as having intrinsic value, particularly manual labor.  The Hebrews, the Greeks, the Romans saw work as something to escape, to have slaves do.   It wasn't until the Reformation that work became holy.  Luther equated one's vocation with one's calling from God.  But, with Calvin, according to History of Work Ethic, work didn't make you good, it was a sign that you were predestined to be good.  

"Central to Calvinist belief was the Elect, those persons chosen by God to inherit eternal life. All other people were damned and nothing could change that since God was unchanging. While it was impossible to know for certain whether a person was one of the Elect, one could have a sense of it based on his own personal encounters with God. Outwardly the only evidence was in the person’s daily life and deeds, and success in one’s worldly endeavors was a sign of possible inclusion as one of the Elect. A person who was indifferent and displayed idleness was most certainly one of the damned, but a person who was active, austere, and hard-working gave evidence to himself and to others that he was one of God’s chosen ones (Tilgher, 1930, p. 53-61).
Calvin taught that all men must work, even the rich, because to work was the wil of God."

In any case, today, most of us, at least subconsciously if not explicitly, tend to look down on the poor and give respect to the wealthy.  But despite this general rule, there have always been exceptions:

1. Those who inherit wealth only work if they want to or their families require them to. If they do work it’s often in jobs provided through family connections
2. Slaves worked, but didn’t get paid for their work - their masters took the benefit, and those lost wages are still reflected in our society’s wealth inequality.
3. Women didn’t work outside the house unless economics forced them to.  Married women whose  husbands had enough income to support the family worked at home.  Depending on how much the husband earned, the woman might work hard in the house or might have help to do most of the work.
4. People who were physically or mentally ill or disabled may or may not have worked depending if they could find something that matched their abilities  
5.  Children may or may not have worked - it depended on the family income and where they lived.  Farm kids often worked from a young age.  Child labor outside the house/farm expanded greatly in the industrial age for poor families.  And conditions were often horrendous.

Today, we still have this moral value attached to wealth and working.  Not working, or at least being poor, is seen in the US as a moral failing.  We may provide services for the homeless, but we tend to blame their homelessness on lack of a work ethic.

A Change In the Nature Of Work

The myth is that the work ethic was useful once in a time when everyone had to work for the family and the society to survive.  That may have been true of families, but most societies in history had workers and those who lived off the work of the rest.
The work ethic was probably a convenient tool when human economies became industrialized and workers were needed in the factories.   But our economy has changed.

Trump has blamed immigrants for taking away American jobs though we know for the most part immigrants take jobs that Americans either don’t want to do, or skilled positions for which employers can’t find enough qualified Americans.

The Real Job Thief Has Been Automation.  

From the time that science was applied to management in the US (around the early 1900s) workers were seen as a problem. Early Management Science tried to make factories more efficient by making people more machine like.  People no longer created a whole product from the beginning to the end.

Instead the process was broken down in to separate pieces, and factory workers did the same 10 - 90 second action over and over again all day.  The joy of work, of having a craft and doing it well, was replaced by tedious, boring work.  First this was with factory work, but then it spread into other fields.  Some of the last fields are education and medicine.  The technology of distance education, for example, reduces teaching into components.  Teachers prepare, with the help of teaching technicians, videos, reading assignments, etc. before the class begins.  Everything is put on line and the teacher may have no role except to comment in discussion groups. And a new teacher could step in and appropriate the work of the teacher who designed the class.   Doctors are no longer working in private practice.  They are now mostly employees of hospitals.

What Will We Do With Our Leisure?

This change was already anticipated in the 1950s and 1960’s when weekly magazines had cover stories with titles like “Automation:  What will people do with all their leisure time?”  They were predicting 30 hour work weeks.

What they forgot was that we have a capitalistic society where profits go to the owners of the companies.  So, as work got automated, some employees did get more leisure - they lost their jobs.  The remaining employees often ended up working more than far more than 40 hours a week.

Companies then used automation to out-source a lot of the remaining work to customers - think about self-service gas and grocery checkout, ATM machines,  skipping travel agents and booking your own tickets on line.  Now we even have to check ourselves in and get our own baggage claims.

Instead of 30 hour work weeks, we have far more unemployed, and a much greater income gap between the heads of corporations and their employees.

Are You Ever Going To Wrap This Up, Steve?

The point of this long explanation is that people are unemployed because our society doesn't need everyone to work to produce the goods and services that we want.  In fact, we do it more efficiently with more machines and fewer workers.

But our value system is still based on a society that needed every able bodied person to work.  I’m guessing that you, like most people, are still thinking in terms of those old values.  But owners of companies have an incentive to automate and get rid of jobs - it’s cheaper and machines don’t have personal lives that interfere with their work.

So that’s why I’m not persuaded by your argument that with an income tax, some people don’t contribute their fair share.  That language implies a moral shortcoming on the part of those who will get something for nothing that echoes the Protestant work ethic.

Most, if not all of those people who don’t earn enough to pay an income tax, also didn’t get a fair share when it came to things like good parents, skills that are rewarded in our school system and job market, good mental and physical health, and other factors that impact who will succeed and who won’t in our society.  Brawn which was marketable in the past, is much less in demand.

The systems we have for allocating pay are also very skewed.   How hard you work is not necessarily related to how well you do or whether what you do makes society better or worse.   Should the people who get rich selling alcohol have some extra responsibility for the people who die at the hands of an alcoholic?   Should a teacher get tax credits for inspiring a student to succeed despite a difficult upbringing? [UPDATE a little later:  When I wrote this, I didn't know that a bill has been introduced in California to exempt teachers from state income tax.0

An important measure of human beings for me is how they play the hand they were dealt at birth.  Those who are given a lot, owe a lot more than those who were dealt a lousy hand.  In my ideal world, people's moral worth would be measured by the ratio between the benefits one receives and what one gives to society.  Ideally, everyone would be at least 1:1.

The people who camp in the woods along the bike trails would mostly like a decent home and income and only camp in the woods when they chose to.  But their skills and life experiences have gotten them to a point where they really can’t get out of their ruts without some serious interventions.  Our health care non-system caused many people to self-medicate, with alcohol being the legal drug, but lots of illegal drugs have also been available.   American individualism still attributes poverty to the laziness of the individual.  Other countries recognize that the social, political, economic systems play a big role in who succeeds, financially, in life and who doesn't.

I  don’t have a problem paying higher taxes to offset what they can’t pay.  I wouldn’t want to trade places with them.  And I also know that as the percentage of poor gets bigger, the more brutal society gets, even for the wealthy.

I would love a society where people are nurtured as kids and helped to discover and develop their skills and talents so we have far fewer people who can’t make it on their own.  But we also have to figure out how to distribute wealth when there just aren’t real jobs for a large segment of society.

And so "paying their fair share" doesn't mean that everyone pays in money.  Lots of people are paying with abusive parents,  with learning disabilities that weren't overcome because their school saw them as problems kids not teachable kids, with skills that are no longer valued, with trauma from war or crime, and in many other ways.

This Debate Isn't New

And I'd note, these conflicting  ways of looking at the world aren't new.  Hilary Mantel, in Bring Up The Bodies, describes how Henry VIII's chief minister,  Thomas Cromwell's attempt to hire the poor to build much needed infrastructure was treated by Parliament:

"In March, Parliament knocks back his new poor law.  It was too much for the Commons to digest, that rich men might have some duty to the poor;  that if you get fat, as gentlemen of England do, on the wool trade, you have some responsibility to the men turned off the land, the labourers without labour, the sowers without a field.  England needs roads, forts, harbours, bridges.  Men need work.  It's a shame to see them begging their bread, when honest labour could keep the realm secure.  Can we not put them together, the hands and the task?
But Parliament cannot seee how it is the state's job to create work.  Are not these matters in god's hands, and is not poverty and dereliction part of his eternal order?  To everything there is a season:  a time to starve and a time to thieve.  If rain falls for six months solid and rots the grain in the fields, there must be providence in it;  for God knows his trade.  It is an outrage to the rich and enterprising, to suggest that they should pay an income tax, only to put bread in the mouths of the workshy.  And if Secretary Cromwell argues that famine provokes criminality;  well, are there not hangmen enough?" (emphasis mine.)

I'd note that Thomas Cromwell lived from 1485 - 1540 and Martin Luther lived from 1483 -1546.
John Calvin lived from 1509 - 1584.

Cut Teachers Pay To Preserve Their Peers' Jobs?

There were a number of noteworthy (which literally means worthy of noting) clusters of words in today's Alaska Dispatch News.

Here's the letter that triggered this post's title:

"Teachers should work for less
To go along with the article "Senate education plan could cut hundreds more jobs statewide" by Dermot Cole, teachers statewide should consider taking a reduction in pay during this state of Alaska budget crisis to help save some of their peers' jobs!
— Richard N. Ramirez
Anchorage"

What sort of pay cuts is Mr. Ramirez suggesting?  Why should teachers alone take a cut in pay for the benefit of everyone else's children?   Why, "during this state of Alaska budget crisis" shouldn't all Alaskans take a cut in pay to help save some jobs?  And to help keep the student/teacher ratio a little lower so each kid gets more attention?

But why stop at teaching jobs?
If everyone who works in Alaska (including non-residents) took a cut in pay, no one would have to take too big a cut.  There is a way to, in effect, have all working Alaskans take a cut in pay to share the burden.  Now that oil isn't paying all our bills, shouldn't all of us pay equitably for the roads and  the bridges,  for our state parks, for keeping our water clean, for use of the airports, for disease prevention, and all the other, sometimes, invisible, benefits of having a state government?  All these things we use and like a lot that we don't notice until they stop working.  Shouldn't Alaskans take a little pay cut for what we get, like the people in other states and in the rest of the world?

There's a system already set up to do that.  It's called an income tax.

It does exactly what you are saying teachers should do - take a cut in pay.  We'll still get our PFD's. Come on all my mighty fellow Alaskans who get all these state benefits for free.  Let's stop whining and grow up and pay our fair share.  But, let the legislators know, you want them to design a tax that is as easy as filling out a PFD application.


Another opinion that caught my attention was Suzie Smith's 'aw shucks' defense of keeping our taxi regulations the way they are by voting yes on proposition 8.

"If having 300 cabs available on the streets to take us from A to B whenever we wanted them actually didn't cost us any more money than having 188, then why stop there? Can we have 1,000? 10,000?  Hey, can we have, like, a cab each? Parked outside our houses, with a private driver wearing a chauffeur's hat? He can take us wherever we need to go for the same rates … in fact, it should cost us less, because competition, right?"

Cute, but no one is asking for a cab for everyone.

Let's stick with 300 cabs for a minute.  Give us the numbers to show us how many hours cabs have fares and how many hours a day the average cab is riding empty.  Or which hours no cabs are available.  Show us how much income you get by owning a cab permit, the hours you work on cab stuff, and what that comes to as an hourly wage.  Maybe you have numbers that prove your point, but you didn't offer them here.  And you didn't mention things like access for handicapped passengers which was improved by the ordinance you want to repeal, or how Uber and Lyft are going to impact the taxi business.  Or is this really about how much you stand to lose if your permit loses its value?

There's also a great story in We Alaskans about an Indonesian 17 year old who is an exchange student in Kasilof told from the perspective of the student and her American temporary father.  I've spent ten minutes trying to find a way to link to the story for people who aren't ADN subscribers, but I can't.  Here's a link to We Alaskans with the other stories in today's edition, maybe it will show up eventually.

Finally, I'd note that Nathaniel Herz' brief interviews with new legislators gives us a chance to see these people as, well, people.  Nat got glimpses that add a little bit to our understanding of individual legislators and the legislature as a whole.  Rep. Jason Gren has a son named Atticus who's not pleased that his daddy isn't always home to tuck him into bed. Rep. Dean Westlake is part of the R.J. Reynolds Caucus which meets for smoke breaks and gives him a chance to spend time with Republicans.  Gary Knopp gets to ride excavators and road graders when he's not in the legislature. Rep. George Rauscher drove about 7000 miles in his Jeep campaigning in his huge Southcentral district.  Wasilla's Rep. David Wilson doesn't seem to like talking to the media.  Nothing huge here, but reminders that our legislators are not cartoon stereotypes, but real human beings trying to make a difference.

Yes, there should be more in depth articles about legislation that help spell it out for average folks, but I'm guessing far more readers will read this piece than more penetrating news on what they are and aren't doing in Juneau.

Maddow Tax Show Twitter Feed Thoughts

MSNBC wanted me to sign in to listen to the Maddow tax reveal live.

So I found the Twitter feed and watched that.  Someone put a link to a live Youtube feed, but somehow I lost it during a break, so I went back to the Twitter feed.  What was interesting was the high level of troll like comments - especially the same kind of comment over and over.

I haven't figured out how to easily collect all the tweets and then analyze them, but I've taken clumps of them and then looked for patterns.

Question 1: The role of organized trollers on Twitter

We know that there are organized robot tweeters and Politico says that Trump used them heavily in the campaign,  (Also that Clinton did to some extent.)

"The accounts pumping out the tweets created the appearance of authentic outrage but had all the hallmarks of fakes, according to researchers who specialize in “bot” networks — short for robot — that shower social media with phony messages appearing to spring up from the grass roots.
The pro-Trump networks tweet incessantly, but only to praise Trump and bash Clinton and the media, constantly retweeting Trump staff, pro-Trump pundits and other fake accounts, thousands of which recently added “deplorable” to their usernames. . ."
“The bot nets usually turn whatever the issue is back on Hillary,” said Phil Howard, a professor at Oxford University’s Internet Institute and the principal investigator at the Computational Propaganda Project, which has closely tracked the networks. Howard has noted the same pattern in response to stories about Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, with bots alleging that Clinton is keeping even bigger secrets from the public. “They tend to be used to confused or muddy,” he said."

So, I'd raise some questions about how the comments on Twitter actually reflected how the public reacted to the Maddow revelations.

I couldn't keep track - things move fast on Twitter - and there were so many tweets that going through them all was a much bigger task than I have time for.  I'd say during the broadcast, the negative tweets outnumbered the positive, but I wouldn't dare to put any numbers out there.  Some of the negatives were not necessarily just from pro-Trumpers.  I'm sure a number of those complaining about how Maddow was dragging out the reveal were from real, individual tweeters.

But after the broadcast, things went strongly pro-Trump.  At 7:30pm (Alaska Daylight Savings Time, or 11:30pm ET), I went through the latest 100 tweets, and all but about three or four were anti-Maddow tweets.



2.  What were the themes of the tweets?

I saw nothing that challenged the facts of what Maddow said.  Basically they challenged how she said it, the importance of it, and her personally.  There were clear memes that got repeated over and over, sometimes identically, sometimes with slight variations.  Here are some of the memes with tweet examples.

• Geraldo and Al Capone's safe  - there were lots of these which seem to have come from somewhere other than the show itself

 In reply to POLITICO

T-Mac‏ @TMacWalsh  55m55 minutes ago

@politico Biggest TV debacle since Geraldo opened Al Capone's vault. Rachel Maddow looked like a fool.

• Maddow's going to jail for illegally revealing income tax form     

Debi #AlwaysTrump‏ @new_debis  1h1 hour ago1 hour agoMore@RVAwonk : "Why is Rachel Maddow not in police custody. She illegally obtained private documents & published the info. This is a CRIME!"

• No news here

Bethany Elaine @nattyguns 1h1 hour ago

More

Rachel Maddow you have just broken the biggest story in History!!!! Trump paid his taxes!!! Omg!! How illegal!! #rachelmaddow #trump

• Personal attacks on Maddow - including gender related ones

Neil Messer @NeilMesser 29m

@maddow So Rachel Maddow .... what hurt worse, this #TrumpTaxReturn fail, or getting your dick caught in your zipper?

• This is Fake News   - Actually, it does appear that the tax reform and the figures were real, not fake news.  Even the White House confirmed it.  

Marosa Lopez‏ @marosa_lopez  1h1 hour ago1 hour agoMoreMarosa Lopez Retweeted The Phoenix
Rachel Maddow is awful #FakeNews Change the CH
#boycottMaddow #msnbc#boycottRachelMaddow#boycottNBC #boycottrachelmaddow #Retweet

• He paid his taxes, joke's on Maddow 

 Conservative Thinker Retweeted

Conservative Thinker‏ @Conservative_OK  3h3 hours ago

Rachel Maddow just revealed that #TrumpsTaxReturns show he paid $38,000,000 taxes in 2005. She just got Mr. Trump re-elected in 2020! #MAGA

• Maddow credibility ruined

Mikey Mileos @mikeymileos 31m31 minutes agoMore
Watch Rachel Maddow's brilliant take down of.. her own credibility. Only on MSNBC.

• Thanks for proving Trump paid more than other presidential candidates.

These came later in the game and clearly stemmed from this Truthfeed post (lots of copies of the poster on Twitter) and this Data Debunk chart:

Data Debunk @data_debunk 2h

2 hours ago

More

Tax rates paid:

Trump 2005: 25%

Obama 2014: 19.6%

Romney 2011: 14.1%

Sanders 2014: 13.5%

NY Times 2014: 0%

#TrumpTaxReturn @MarkDice

Truthfeed is a conservative site that gets high bias ratings and the Data Debunk feed only 'debunked' things that made conservatives look bad.

You'll note that they didn't select the same years to compare.  Obama actually paid 33% in 2005.
I couldn't find Romney or Sanders returns for 2005.  I only could find 2014 for Sanders and 2011 for Romney.  The numbers appear accurate.  Romney's is really low.  And he lost the election.  Sanders paid $26,000 on a total of $200,000 gross.
I'd note that there's no comparison with the Clintons. I'd guess that's because  they paid an average of 31% over eight years including 2005.  From  2001-2015 they paid between 25% (2007) and 38.2% (2002).   Only three times were they under 30%.

If you want to peruse the tax returns of old presidential candidates, you can find them here.

3.  Did Maddow accomplish anything?

Having watched this through the lens of Twitter, I'm not sure about what loose ends might have been tied.  But she did two things for sure:
David Cay Johnston

• gave the public a couple of pages of a Trump tax return, something Trump has refused to do, and no one else has done
• showed that lots of people are interested in the tax returns by the frenzy her tweet that she had it caused
• there will be more questions about the returns we haven't seen and pressure to publish them

4.  Was Maddow played by the Trump administration?

Given that the return showed that Trump paid $34 million in taxes that year is the first hint of this.  Then there were all the Tweeters ready to go with a lot of memes basically aimed at discrediting Maddow.  

Another clue was what wasn't tweeted.  Although people clamored for Maddow to be jailed for 'illegally leaking' the information about Trump,  I saw nothing from anyone about getting the person who leaked the information to Maddow.  Even the White House statement only mentioned that 

"it is totally illegal to steal and publish tax returns."

With all the complaints about the leaks coming out of this administration, attacking the leaker should have been a key issue for Trump.  Except this was a leak, that at first glance (which is all most people will take), makes it look like Trump paid a lot of taxes.  Was this an attempt to 

• take the pressure of the demands for Trump taxes?
• take attention off the Russia ties and other issues?
• make MSNBC and Maddow look ridiculous?

The Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, David Cay Johnston, who got the pages anonymously in the mail, says it's very possible they were sent by the Trump administration.  He also pointed out that if it weren't for the Alternative Minimum Tax, which Trump wants to eliminate, Trump would have only owed $7 million.  I didn't see that mentioned in the Twitter feed.  

Another odd Note

The other Trump tax return (1995) that was made public was mailed anonymously to a New York Times reporter, Susanne Craig, and came in an envelope with a Trump organization return address.  That one didn't show Trump in such a (relatively) good light.  That was last September.


Autocorrect replaces Maddow with Maddox if you aren't being careful.  So in any Maddoxes slipped in, blame it on autocorrect.  I've already changed a few, including in the title.