Taxes

Today is the deadline to file your 2017 federal tax return, the last where the old rates and brackets will apply. Social media is alive with pro-Republican pundits, Republican lawmakers, President Trump and his Trumpketeers and ordinary Americans who are proud that they didn't pay attention in math class because "they'd never use it". They're crowing about how this is the last filing under the old broken, failed system. They're bragging about how it's much simpler it is and how much more money we're all taking home.

Except it's not true.

It's simpler for married couples filing jointly who were itemizing deductions between $12,701 - $24,000. That the increase in the standard deduction, which will eliminate the advantage of itemizing anything under $24,000, but for the majority of Americans who didn't itemize before, there will be no change in complexity. As for tax cuts, many Americans will see a reduction in taxes, but many won't. How will the changes in the tax rates and brackets affect you? Do the math.

No, I'm not going to do the math for you. There are several web sites that list the old and new rates and brackets. Recalculate your 2017 taxes using the new numbers and see what you come up with. And don't get distracted by what your refund is, or will be; look at what your actual tax is and compare. But I'm going to bet that the chances of you doing that are negligible. Most people either believe the Trumpists and Republicans that it's a massive, historical tax cut or that it's nothing but a giveaway to the rich, without actually checking it for themselves.

I've done the math, and I know how it will affect me, and I can also calculate whether some of the claims that people are making about how much larger their paychecks are can be true. Spoiler alert: most are not.

The effect that the corporate tax cuts will have on ordinary taxpayers is less clear cut. We've seen reports of companies that have given out year-end bonuses to their employees. Of course we never hear about the vast majority of companies that aren't giving out bonuses. And we hear of hardly any who are increasing employee pay across the board. How tax rates influence corporate hiring and investment is a complex subject, and the anecdotal evidence of a few months into the new tax framework doesn't tell us much. What I do know is that businesses seldom do hings for their employees out of the goodness of their hearts. This is why I am highly suspicious of the companies who not only handed out bonuses, but made sure to publicly credit their decision to the tax  reduction, even though the tax impact won't really be known until this time next year. Wal-Mart is a good example. Much was made about their year-end $1000/employee bonuses, but it took a while for the news that only 20 year veterans got the full $1000 and that they were simultaneously closing hundreds of stores.

So, the moral of the story is to get out your calculator, or count on your fingers and figure it out for yourself.

Mueller

Following the raid on Michael Cohen's home and office (Michael Cohen - one of Trump's lawyers) President Trump has called the Mueller investigation "a disgrace"  and "an attack on our country". He has characterized the investigation as partisan, and on several occassions, "a witch hunt". But let's look at why there's an investigation in the first place, and why Robert Mueller is running it.

United States intelligence agencies, as part of routine surveillance of foreign agents, some operating within the U.S., became aware that Russian agents were in contact with members of the Trump campaign and other Trump associates and family members. This, along with the conclusion that the Russian government was engaged in actions to influence the 2016 Presidential election in favor of Trump, caused the FBI to begin investigating links between the Russian influencers and the Trump campaign. A key moment in the FBI investigation was when George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor to Trump, told an Australian official that the campaign was receiving information about Secretary of State Clinton from the Russians. This was the catalyst for the FBI to seek a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Carter Page, a Trump associate. Later Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, became aware of links between Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign and reported his findings to the FBI. (Steele was originally hired by a Republican group to investigate Trump, but was later funded by the Democratic National Committee [DNC]). Attorney General Jeff Sessions was also mentioned as possibly having made illegal contacts with Russians during the campaign, so he recused himself from oversight of the investigation.

Shortly thereafter Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. This was when the appointment of Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate connections between Russians and the Trump campaign happened. Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, without apparently consulting with Sessions or Trump, announced that Mueller, a former FBI Director, would be heading up the investigation.

Despite Trump's repeated claims that it's been proved that there is "no collusion", Mueller's team continues to move forward, with a number of guilty pleas and indictments of Trump campaign officials and associates. ("Collusion" is not a legal term and has no meaning within the context of this investigation.) The investigation continues to find examples of illegal or questionable contact between Trump associates and Russians, as well as financial improprieties,  including money laundering.

Trump's continual attacks on Mueller and his investigators is also troubling. He has fired two of the top FBI officials, Comey and Andrew McCabe, who were involved in the investigation pre-Mueller. It has been leaked that he has discussed firing Rosenstein in order to put someone in place who can control Mueller, or even firing Mueller himself. He regularly excoriates Sessions for recusing himself, suggesting that if he knew about the recusal beforehand he would have nominated someone else for Attorney General. Trump criticizes Rosenstein and Mueller for conducting a partisan attack, even though they are both Republicans. The judge and US Attorney who approved the raid on Cohen are both Republicans appointed by Trump. Trump's tweets are a barrage of attacks seeking to undermine the investigation. Obstruction of justice is one of the things that Mueller is looking at. It's pretty scary when the one being investigating can fire the investigator.

Will Trump be the ultimate target?

Just The Facts Ma'am

News organizations, whether newspapers, cable networks or online providers, are made up of people, and as such bring with them the tendencies and biases of those people. It has been my experience, however, that most reporters are aware of their own biases and work hard to keep them out of their reporting. Individual reporters know that their continued employment is based on their reputation for unbiased and accurate reporting. At the corporate level, newspaper publishers and network CEOs, who are mainly concerned with profits, understand that long-term profitability is based on their readers' perception that reporting is accurate and unbiased. Publishing stories that are attention-getting yet based on unsubstantiated information, or worse, lies, may bring a short-term ratings or circulation boost, but is reputation damaging in the long term.

This is not to say that news organizations don't have a point of view. The point of view can manifest itself as being partial to one party or the other, or being pro-business or pro-labor. In a newspaper, the point of view is expressed on the editorial page, as well as in opinion pieces, where contributors give their views on various subjects. Point of view can also show up in what news is printed, since obviously you can't print everything. But in the news section of a newspaper, facts are king. Printing clearly biased information, slanting coverage, or outright lying is not in the newspaper's long-term interest.

This is not to say that one should believe without question everything that you read in the newspaper or hear on television or radio. Get your information from multiple sources. Educate yourself on the difference between the opinion or analysis that a news organization offers and the facts that they are reporting. Learn to spot signs of bias in news reporting and allow for it.

One of the things that you hear from Trump and his supporters is how the mainstream media "has it out for Trump" and that an overwhelmingly high percentage of articles are negative. Back in December 2017 a Pew Research study concluded that only 9% of articles about Trump that expressed a positive or negative tone were positive vs. 91% negative.  This does not say that 91% of articles about Trump were negative, it does not say what percentage expressed a positive or negative tone. If only 20% of articles expressed a "tone", then only 18.2% of the total were actually negative. The study also doesn't  define "negative". If an article reports that President Trump has made a statement but pointed out that what he said was factually inaccurate, is that negative? If he announces new tax law changes but the article points out how they're not cuts for most Americans or disputes his prediction of how the economy will be affected, is that negative? I don't think it's inaccurate to say that much of what Trump says betrays at least an ignorance of the subject, or that he often makes up "facts" on the spot, or not infrequently out and out lies. Pointing this out is not negative. Pointing this out is not an attack.

Newspapers and other news organizations are not constituent parts of the checks & balances system envisioned by the founders, but they are an important, independent, source of information; so important that the very first amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press.

Our current President has done more to undermine the credibility of the free press in this country than any previous chief executive. His constant cries of "fake news" whenever something is reported that he does not like has carried over to many of his supporters, who will echo his "fake news" label at all critical reporting. A large percentage of Americans believe that most of what is reported by the mainstream media is "fake news". Where does that leave us? Are we really ready to rely on one politician for our facts? Do we want a situation where only the words of one man are deemed reliable? Many Americans have no problem with this.