Tag: taxes
'If I Was A King': White House Tried To Hide 'Damning' Trump Speech​

'If I Was A King': White House Tried To Hide 'Damning' Trump Speech​

The White House scrambled this week to delete a "damning" speech from President Donald Trump that was supposed to remain hidden, according to The New Republic, with the administration accidentally sharing it online for all to see.

Trump on Wednesday delivered remarks at a White House event commemorating Easter, which was supposed to be press-free, meaning that no videos of the address were meant to circulate publicly. Instead, a video of Trump's appearance was briefly shared on the official White House website before being swiftly deleted. This did not stop reporters like Bryan Metzger of Business Insider from sharing the video around anyway.

Such a slip-up might not have otherwise been a major deal, except that the contents of Trump's remarks contained several alarming and damning asides, according to The New Republic, including instances where the president blamed the cost of the Iran war for making free childcare impossible, claiming that it must be left to the states so that military spending can be prioritized.

“We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare," Trump said. "You got to let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too. They should pay. They’ll have to raise their taxes, but they should pay for it. And we could lower our taxes a little bit to them to make up. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal [level]. We have to take care of one thing: military protection."

Speaking further on his controversial war, Trump chastised Americans for not having "the patience" to wait while the military takes control of Iran's oil.

"We could just take their oil. But, you know, I’m not sure that the people in our country have the patience to do that, which is unfortunate," Trump said. "You know, they want to see it end. If we stayed there, I, you know, I’d prefer just to take the oil. We could do it so easily. I would prefer that, but people in the country sort of say, ‘Just win, you’re winning so big. Just win, come home.'"

Trump also at one point touched on his White House ballroom project, which was halted this week by a federal judge's order. The president mused about how much easier such a thing would be if he were a king instead.

“I can’t get a ballroom approved. It’s pretty amazing, right?” Trump also said in the speech. “If I was a king, we’d be doing a lot more. I’m doing a lot, but I could be doing a lot more if I was a king.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Going Nowhere, Or Learning To Ignore The Plutocrats Who Cried 'Commie!'

Going Nowhere, Or Learning To Ignore The Plutocrats Who Cried 'Commie!'


The reaction of plutocrats to the Zohran Mamdani campaign — histrionic freakout before the mayoral election, with promises to flee New York City if he won, followed by a big “never mind” when he did — can teach us a couple of things.


First, ignore billionaires when they threaten to take their marbles and go home. The big money always responds to threats of tax hikes, or even mere verbal criticism, by threatening to go all Ayn Rand and move to Galt’s Gulch. In reality, they won’t even move to Florida.

You may recall that a couple of years ago there was a lot of talk about how the financial industry was going to flee blue-state taxes and wokeness and move to Miami. And to be fair, some companies did move. Notably, Ken Griffin, a hedge-fund billionaire and a big Trump backer, made a splash when he did indeed move the global headquarters of Citadel and Citadel Securities from Chicago to Miami.

But the second headline above comes from a CNBC report on remarks from top commercial real estate executives, who see Mamdani having little impact on booming demand for offices in New York. This includes plans by Griffin to rent substantial space in a new building at 350 Park Avenue. “Ken is committed and will have more employees at 350 Park than in Miami,” said one executive.

Why won’t plutocrats flee New York? For one thing, they’re not stupid (although they were hoping that voters were.) Mamdani might — might — be able to raise their taxes a bit. But they don’t really believe that free buses and city-run grocery stores will turn one of America’s safest cities into a post-apocalyptic landscape. And New York will retain formidable advantages thanks to agglomeration economies — the advantages of locating a business where many other related businesses are concentrated.

As Bloomberg put it,

For workers in finance and a range of other industries, no technology has so far replaced New York’s longstanding specialty, the face-to-face chat. In-person meetings remain essential for sniffing out who you can trust, what deals might be brewing and which rumors to believe. And from Wall Street to the United Nations, nowhere pulls together more gossip and more elite decision-makers.

This isn’t just a New York strength. There was a West Coast analog to the hype about Miami becoming the new Wall Street: For a while there was a lot of chatter about Silicon Valley fleeing California’s taxes and regulations by decamping to Austin. But the Austin boom has fizzled as companies that moved there found that not being located in a giant tech hub put them at a disadvantage compared with their competitors.

New York also happens to be a great place to live if you can afford housing — which the wealthy can. The central city has much higher effective population density than any other city in America, which in turn supports a range of amenities — restaurants, shops, museums, shows and concerts, and more — that you can’t find anywhere else. This doesn’t matter to the ultrawealthy who use their wealth to wall themselves off in a private universe. But for the merely very, very rich, there’s no place like it. Bloomberg again:

For all the angst about New York City these days, it’s remarkable how well things are going. Broadway houses are fuller than ever. The subways are getting busier and safer. The population is rising again, and the city’s economy seems to have held up well this year as Wall Street pay soars and tax revenue comes in strong.

Now, New York isn’t such a great place to live if you aren’t very affluent. Why? The problem isn’t crime, which is historically low. Nor is it the large number of immigrants, who clearly make the city better in many ways. No, it’s all about affordability, especially the cost of housing.

Mamdani won his remarkable victory largely by promising to address affordability. Whether he can do much to improve it remains to be seen: A New York mayor has very limited power, and the obstacles to doing what needs to be done, above all building a lot more housing, are formidable.

But one problem Mamdani won’t face is a mass exodus of the people who yelled “Commie!” before the election. When will we learn not to take plutocratic whining seriously?

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

Rep. Mariannette Miller‑Meeks

Boasting About 'No Tax On Tips,' Iowa Republican Caught Tipping...$3

Rep. Mariannette Miller‑Meeks (R-IA) made an unassuming stop at bar in Iowa County, where she celebrated the new “No Tax on Tips” provision.

In a post on the social platform X Monday, she posted her picture at the bar and wrote, “Made a pit stop in Iowa County for lunch at Sun Down Bar and Grill. I got to celebrate No Tax on Tips with our wonderful server, she’s thrilled about this provision and excited to keep more of what she earns!”

Social media users pounced on the details in the photo, pointing out that she left just a $3 tip.

Journalist Matt Fuller wrote: "Is she — is she tipping $3?"

Blake Allen, an attorney, wrote: "Kinda hilarious that she’s tipping $3 by leaving exact change. I’m not saying this is why she’s a horrible underperformer in basically every political race she’s ever run in, but it’s a solid indication of why she does."

Journalist Pablo Manríquez wrote: "$2.81 tip are you effing kidding me??? This lady makes makes $174,000 per year!!!"

"Such a generous $3 tip!!! Maybe don’t post your 'generosity' on social media," wrote a user.

The “No Tax on Tips” provision, part of broader GOP-backed tax initiatives under the Trump administration, lifts federal income taxation on a portion of tip income, aiming to put more cash in the pockets of workers. But the plan raises concerns about its long-term impact on the federal deficit and its uneven benefit across income levels.

Supporters argue it boosts morale and reduces job churn, while critics point out that many low-wage workers already pay little to no income tax and that the exemption could disproportionately benefit higher-net tip earners.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Trump Tariffs

Trump's Tariffs Are Actually A Tax That Democrats Can Cut

As usual, the New York Times gets things exactly wrong in a piece headlined “Trump’s Tariffs are Making Money. That May Make Them Hard to Quit.” The gist of the article is that the tariffs are on a path to raise close to $400 billion a year, and possibly considerably more, depending on where Trump ends up with his trade “deals.”

While this is in fact a very substantial sum, it makes for an obvious campaign issue for Democrats in 2026 and 2028. They can promise a huge tax cut to ordinary workers.

At $400 billion, the tariffs come to an average of more than $3,000 per household annually. The Democrats can promise a large tax cut to working and middle-class families by rolling back the tariffs. They can offset much of the revenue loss by reversing Trump’s tax cuts to the rich. Tax cuts for ordinary people, paid for by higher taxes on the rich, is likely to be a very appealing campaign platform.

The Democrats will also have an advantage in going this route as a result of the fact that Trump will already have the tariffs in effect. Many Democrats, especially union members, have supported tariffs with the idea that they will bring back good-paying manufacturing jobs.

It is almost inconceivable that Trump’s tariffs will bring back any substantial number of manufacturing jobs, and the ones that do come back are not likely to be especially good paying. Historically, manufacturing jobs were high paying because the sector was heavily unionized. This is no longer the case, the manufacturing sector is only slightly more heavily unionized than the rest of the private sector; 8.0 percent in manufacturing compared to 6.0 percent in the rest of the private sector. As a result manufacturing jobs are not likely to pay more than jobs in other sectors.

With the tariffs in effect, workers will be able to see that this is not an effective route for creating good-paying jobs. Therefore, there should be less resistance to rolling them back.

It is also worth reminding folks, especially people who write major articles on economic issues at the New York Times, how tariffs work. They get revenue for the government by raising the prices of things we buy. That means reducing tariffs will lower prices.

The political experts who wrote about the last election all told us that the main reason the Democrats lost was that people hated inflation. This meant that even though most people actually had increases in wages that outpaced prices, they were still angry at Biden and the Democrats because things they bought cost most.

If inflation is very bad news politically, then presumably Donald Trump and the Republicans will be paying a big price for the inflation that is coming about as a result of their tariffs. That would seem to provide a great political opening for the Democrats. Just as Trump scored political points with his promise to bring prices down on day one, the Democrats should be able to score political points by promising to lower prices, but this time with a real plan: cutting tariffs.

It’s true that reducing or eliminating the Trump tariffs may raise the deficit if the tariff reduction is not fully offset by the increased taxes on the rich, but no one seems to vote based on deficits. At least that has been the track record for the last half century. Republicans were not punished for big increases in the deficit under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and Democrats were not rewarded for substantial amounts of deficit reduction under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The pundit class may get upset, but why should anyone care?

In short, the political warnings in this article are 180 degrees at odds with reality. The Trump tariffs should create a huge political opening for Democrats in future elections.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World