Federal Taxes (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares169 Views

    The Supreme Court’s Rejection of a Disputed Legal Theory on Elections

    by

    More from our inbox:Race and ClassDemand Tax Relief‘Make Reading Fun Again’The German Far Right Should Worry Us AllThe case will have no practical impact in the dispute that gave rise to it, involving North Carolina’s congressional voting map. The state has waged many battles over redistricting.Gerry Broome/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Court Rules State Control of U.S. Voting Has Limits” (front page, June 28):Several high-profile cases were decided by the Supreme Court this month, but only one, Moore v. Harper, had the potential to affect the very lifeblood of our democracy — voting. This election law case considered, in part, a controversial constitutional theory known as the “independent state legislature” doctrine.At issue was whether or not state legislatures had absolute power with no electoral oversight authority by state courts to regulate federal elections. With unchecked power, state legislators in key swing states could have rejected the voters’ slate of electors and appointed their handpicked substitutes.The Supreme Court has an obligation to protect our democracy. By rejecting the dangerous independent state legislature theory, the court safeguarded state-level judiciaries, shielding the will of the voters in the process.Jim PaladinoTampa, Fla.To the Editor:In the 6-to-3 Supreme Court ruling Tuesday in Moore v. Harper, the fact that a supermajority including both Democratic and Republican appointees reaffirmed the American constitutional order is the latest example that the Republican-appointed justices are not in the hip pocket of Donald Trump and the extreme right of the Republican Party.This should provide comfort for those who believe in the separation of powers as prescribed in our Constitution.John A. ViterittiLaurel, N.Y.To the Editor:Adam Liptak writes about the Supreme Court’s ruling that soundly dismissed the “independent state legislature” theory.The article quotes Richard L. Hasen, a U.C.L.A. law professor and leading election law scholar, who said the ruling giving the Supreme Court the ultimate say in federal election disputes was “a bad, but not awful, result.”It seems globally accepted that legal disputes, including election disputes, should be decided by courts, and that in federal democracies, the highest national courts are best suited to have the last word in federal election cases.While it is common for politicians and lawyers worldwide to dismiss international best practices based on the uniqueness of their legal systems, in the U.S., too, only the Supreme Court can ensure consistency across all states and thus protect the integrity of federal elections.Jurij ToplakNew YorkThe writer is a visiting professor at Fordham University School of Law.To the Editor:In your article the Supreme Court justices whose opinions pose a threat to voting rights and democracy are referred to as “conservative.” The justices’ positions are not “conservative,” if conservative refers to those who are committed to preserve traditional institutions, practices and values.I would ask that The Times consider a better word to describe these justices, whose positions on legal issues are heavily influenced by considerations of preserving Republican rule, class structures and Christian ideological dominance.Cindy WeinbaumAtlantaRace and Class Pablo DelcanTo the Editor:Re “Reparations Should Be an End, Not a Beginning,” by John McWhorter (Opinion, June 26):Providing support for those who have been hurt by past discrimination is an important step in alleviating the harm caused by America’s long history of racism.However, including all who are economically disadvantaged in any initiatives, as Professor McWhorter suggests, will broaden support for affirmative action programs while assisting more people who need a hand up.Ignoring this slice of the populace is what has led to simmering resentment in many communities and to the election of Donald Trump in 2016.Rather than pitting groups against one another, we should strive to lift up the fallen, regardless of the origin of people’s suffering.Edwin AndrewsMalden, Mass.Demand Tax ReliefHomeowners 65 or older with income of less than $500,000 could qualify for a property tax cut of as much as $6,500 a year.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Property Taxes Could Be Cut in Half for Older New Jersey Homeowners” (news article, June 22):As a suburban homeowner in Nassau County in New York, I find it reassuring to see neighboring New Jersey working hard to address the problem of high property taxes. It just approved a property tax reduction program for homeowners 65-plus called StayNJ, designed to offset some of the highest property taxes in the country.The people of New York State must demand that their elected officials pass similar relief for their constituents, who also live in a state with high property taxes. We are still suffering from a $10,000 state and local taxes deduction cap on our federal income tax that was passed under former President Donald Trump.Congressional Democrats promised to repeal this as one of their legislative priorities and have failed to keep their promise so far. So it is up to us to demand action from the New York State Legislature.Philip A. Paoli Jr.Seaford, N.Y.‘Make Reading Fun Again’To the Editor:Re “13-Year-Olds in U.S. Record Lowest Test Scores in Decades” (news article, June 22):The latest data is out on reading scores for 13-year-olds in the U.S., and it’s not good. Children’s reading levels are at their lowest in decades.In your article, the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics states, “This is a huge-scale challenge that faces the nation.”Indeed, we see this challenge every day in the faces of children in our homes, schools and communities. We are responding by bolstering instruction, tutoring and summer learning, all of which offer reason to hope.But what stood out to me most in this story was that fewer kids report reading for fun, with 31 percent saying they “never or hardly ever” read for fun, compared with 22 percent in 2012.Could reigniting a love for reading and the joy of books be an answer we’re missing to this problem? Imagine every child with an abundant home library, cuddled up with a parent or under the covers reading a book, starting from birth.At a time when our education system is struggling, and life is hard for so many children, let’s make reading fun again!Mary MathewDurham, N.C.The writer is director of advocacy for Book Harvest, which provides books and literacy support to children and families.The German Far Right Should Worry Us AllAn AfD demonstration on energy security and inflation, outside of the Reichstag in Berlin in October.Christoph Soeder/DPA, via Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “As German Worries About Future Rise, Far-Right Party Surges” (news article, June 21):The expanding and emboldened far-right element in Germany is not solely a concern for Germans; it is also troubling for the international community in general and Jews in particular.Extremism fueled by xenophobia and a deep sense of nationalism in a country that carried out the systematic murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust is foreboding and a grave threat to democracy.With global antisemitism increasing at an alarming rate and Nazism experiencing an unsettling resurgence, the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany and the political gains that it has made are a proverbial red flag.When extremism becomes normalized and gains a foothold in the mainstream political arena and people flagrantly fan the flames of fanaticism, we have a societal and moral obligation to sound the alarm.N. Aaron TroodlerBala Cynwyd, Pa. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Is Biden Too Old to Run Again?

      by

      More from our inbox:What to Do About America’s Huge DeficitThe Purpose of TaxesTalking to the Police Pool photo by Saul LoebTo the Editor:Re “Biden’s a Great President Who Shouldn’t Run Again,” by Michelle Goldberg (column, Feb. 7):Ms. Goldberg regrettably parrots the age prejudice coming from the right and, more slyly, from the left. Our culture values a package’s wrappings over its contents, and this is at play here.If we had not begun to confuse Hollywood entertainment with Washington governance decades ago, we would prize the elusive attributes of “character” and “wisdom” and “experience” and vote accordingly, regardless of age.We have been fortunate to have Joe Biden at the helm at this time of multiple threats: war, climate, Covid, the economy, Donald Trump’s weakening of our governmental institutions. Mr. Biden’s political instincts have re-established our stature on the world stage, an enormous feat that insular Americans ought to credit and applaud.Who has both the domestic and international savvy of Mr. Biden at this critical juncture? I do not believe that we should elect someone to the presidency in 2024 who has to learn on the job.Americans tend to embrace change for change’s sake. We need to resist this tendency and instead choose substance and experience.Dorothy NelsonNew OrleansTo the Editor:I am 84 years old. I think President Biden is an excellent president, but I do not want him to run for re-election. If he does, I will vote for a younger candidate in the primary.There is a time, a season, for everything. There is a time when those of us who are old should step aside to allow our younger colleagues to step up. We can still give our opinions on public policy, but we should retire from active duty.Please, President Biden, do not run for re-election.Priscilla AlexanderNew YorkTo the Editor:Michelle Goldberg writes, “In some ways, the more sympathetic you are to Biden, the harder it can be to watch him stumble over his words, a tendency that can’t be entirely explained by his stutter.”As a lifelong stutterer I can say that stuttering is more than just struggling with awkward syllables. Those of us so afflicted can often find our mouths saying things that our brain is not totally connected with. Stumbling over words can be entirely explained by stuttering.Jerome FreedmanBurlington, Mass.To the Editor:I agree with Michelle Goldberg that President Biden has had a many great accomplishments as president but that his age should preclude him from running again, as supported by common sense and polling. The problem is finding an electable alternative.Ms. Goldberg says the Democrats have a “deep bench” but offers only Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has a limited national profile, and Senator Raphael Warnock, who has been a senator for only two years and only narrowly beat the very flawed candidate Herschel Walker.However, very experienced candidates can be found in the U.S. Senate. Such a list would include Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Chris Murphy, Chris Van Hollen and Sheldon Whitehouse. I don’t understand why they don’t get more mention as possible great successors to Mr. Biden.Richard GoetzDelray Beach, Fla.To the Editor:A president’s legacy is a precious commodity. President Biden could be the rare one-termer who is looked back upon with affection and admiration. However, his apparent inability to recognize, in Michelle Goldberg’s words, that “the time has come for a valediction” doesn’t mean that Democrats must sit on their hands.A primary challenge by one of the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls could test the proposition that competing against the incumbent for the 2024 nomination would be a bad thing for the party or the country.Someone like Senator Amy Klobuchar, for example, could mount a positive challenge that extols the accomplishments of President Biden’s first term (successes for which she can share claim) without explicitly calling into question his competence or fitness for a second term. Her focus in the Senate on the enforcement and enhancement of antitrust law offers the potential to draw a distinction with Republicans’ deference to big business while building on Mr. Biden’s long commitment to organized labor.The numbers do not lie. Americans are dissatisfied with the political status quo and ready for a change. A challenge to President Biden could address this discontent without dismissing the accomplishments of the man who has led the country so ably during difficult times.After a career in public service that has spanned nearly 50 years, I say, let the Biden legacy begin.Rob AbbotCroton-on-Hudson, N.Y.What to Do About America’s Huge Deficit Illustration by Rebecca Chew/The New York Times; photograph by TokenPhoto, via Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Answer to America’s Debt Problem,” by Binyamin Appelbaum (Opinion, Jan. 28):Tax increases as a strategy for deficit reduction would be dead on arrival.Mr. Applebaum rightly identifies the federal deficit as a serious problem facing our country. However, offering tax increases as the silver fiscal bullet is impractical.Politics is the art of the possible. With Republicans controlling one branch of government, any deficit strategy that relies on tax increases is D.O.A.What can be done instead? Start by strengthening the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules to make sure future tax cuts and/or increased spending are paid for. Simultaneously, require Congress to adopt a “real” budget, as state and local governments do — one that includes entitlements and multiyear appropriations, not mainly discretionary expenditures.Facilitating comparisons of budget estimates to actual fiscal performance would, at the very least, hold our federal officials accountable for unrealistic projections.Nothing can alter the course of a Congress intent on runaway spending. But prescribing measures that fly in the face of political reality without offering more practical alternatives only undermines the public’s understanding of the nation’s significant long-term fiscal challenges.Michael GranofMartin J. LubyAustin, TexasMr. Granof is emeritus professor of accounting at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin. Mr. Luby is the associate dean and an associate professor at the L.B.J. School of Public Affairs at the university.To the Editor:I count nobody as being serious about the deficit unless they are willing to look at both sides of the ledger: expenses and revenue. Yes, we spend too much and no doubt some of it unwisely and unnecessarily.But we are also not serious about the revenue issues — failing to collect taxes owed under current law, and countenancing a tax code that only the very wealthy can appreciate, beginning with the failure of Congress to repeal the egregious “carried interest” loophole.If average Americans could truly wrap their heads around this particular abuse, they would be furious.Peter D. NallePhiladelphiaThe Purpose of TaxesTo the Editor:Re “Biden Urges G.O.P. to Work With Him to Build Economy” (front page, Feb. 8):As a Democrat and a liberal, I strongly believe that the government has a role in improving people’s lives and that business entities have obligations to society as well as to their owners. Nevertheless, I regard President Biden’s proposal in his State of the Union address to raise the taxes on corporations’ purchases of their own stock as misguided.These taxes are intended to deter stock buybacks and instead promote investment in new ventures. But in a capitalist society the purpose of tax laws should be to raise revenue, and they should be judged by their fairness and efficacy in doing so. Taxes should not be used to encourage or discourage specific business decisions within the purview of corporate boards.Alma Suzin FleschNew YorkTalking to the Police Jim Weber/Santa Fe New Mexican, via Associated PressTo the Editor:In “Alec Baldwin Didn’t Have to Talk to the Police. Neither Do You” (column, Jan. 26), Farhad Manjoo raises an issue faced by many caught up in an unexpected, often emotionally charged moment.As a criminal investigator over a 35-year career, I have seen how remaining silent cuts both ways. Your right to remain silent is uncontested, but the police may be and often are much more interested in you as a result.The innocent should never put themselves in this position. What’s the harm in waiting for an attorney? If it’s your real estate or tax attorney whose criminal law knowledge is drawn from “Law & Order” reruns, you’re in trouble. And as the column suggests, you might inadvertently admit some wrongdoing.Richard FriedmanPittsburgh More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Agenda Hangs in the Balance if Republicans Take Congress

      by

      On a wide array of issues like abortion, taxes, race and judges, President Biden’s opportunities would shrink as Republicans vow to dismantle much of his legislative accomplishments.WASHINGTON — For President Biden, the Dreaming-of-F.D.R. phase of his presidency may end in little more than a week. If Republicans capture one or both houses of Congress in midterm elections, as polling suggests, Mr. Biden’s domestic agenda will suddenly transform from a quest for a New Deal 2.0 to trench warfare defending the accomplishments of his first two years in office.On a wide array of issues like abortion, taxes, race and judges, Mr. Biden’s opportunities would invariably shrink as he focuses less on advancing the expansive policy goals that have animated his administration and more on preserving the newly constructed economic and social welfare architecture that Republicans have vowed to dismantle.While the president and Democratic leaders have not publicly given up on the possibility of hanging onto Congress in the balloting that concludes on Nov. 8, privately they are pessimistic and bracing for two years of grinding partisan conflict.In addition to efforts to block or reverse Mr. Biden’s domestic initiatives, Republican control of either house would result in a flurry of subpoenas and investigations of the administration that would define the relationship between the White House and Congress.Mr. Biden’s aspirations to codify abortion rights, expand access to child care and college, address racial discrimination in policing, install more like-minded judges and guarantee voting rights would all become more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.For their part, Republicans aim to roll back Mr. Biden’s corporate tax increases, climate change spending, student loan forgiveness and I.R.S. expansion targeting wealthy tax cheats.Beyond simply reversing the president’s policies, Republicans promise to advance their own initiatives to further cut taxes and spending, ban transgender women from playing in women’s sports, restrict access to abortion, protect gun rights, crack down on immigration, add more police to the streets and promote energy production, much of which would be hard to pass over a Senate filibuster, much less Mr. Biden’s veto.A change of management on Capitol Hill would represent a marked shift for Mr. Biden, who spent 36 years as a senator and eight years as vice president mastering the arts of legislative maneuvering. Despite razor-thin margins, he has pushed through a raft of far-reaching bills since taking office last year. They include a $1.9 trillion pandemic stimulus package, a $1 trillion plan to upgrade the nation’s roads, bridges and other infrastructure, a $739 billion package to fight climate change and curb prescription drug prices and a $250 billion program to boost the semiconductor industry.A significant number of Republicans supported some of the spending, including for infrastructure and semiconductors, but party leaders have argued that the open checkbook represents the worst of Democratic free-spending proclivities and helped push inflation to its highest rate in 40 years.In past eras, divided government in Washington has at times led to uncomfortable but meaningful compromises, including major tax and Social Security deals under President Ronald Reagan; landmark deficit reduction, clean air and civil rights legislation under President George H.W. Bush; and welfare overhaul and balanced budget measures under President Bill Clinton. No doubt Mr. Biden, who regularly boasts of the bipartisan deals he has forged, would seek areas of common ground.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: The debate performance by Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is still recovering from a stroke, has thrust questions of health to the center of the pivotal race and raised Democratic anxieties.G.O.P. Inflation Plans: Republicans are riding a wave of anger over inflation as they seek to recapture Congress, but few economists expect their proposals to bring down rising prices.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.But today’s political atmosphere is radically more polarized than it was in the 1980s and 1990s, making it harder to imagine a Democratic president and Republican legislature coming together on areas of major disagreement except in a national crisis. The prospects of accord may be even more distant in case of a comeback campaign by former President Donald J. Trump, who would pressure his party to resist Mr. Biden at every turn.— Peter BakerHere are some major areas where the two sides would clash:TaxesMr. Biden imposed new taxes on corporations, including a new minimum tax on large multinationals like Amazon and a tax on stock buybacks, to help fund the climate and health priorities in the Inflation Reduction Act, which he signed this summer. He also increased spending on the Internal Revenue Service, to raise revenues by cracking down on companies and high earners that cheat on their taxes.Republicans want to repeal all those measures while passing further tax cuts, including extending some of the reductions for businesses and individuals passed in 2017 under Mr. Trump that are set to expire over the next few years.They have promised to reduce federal spending. Some prominent House conservatives want to reduce expenditures on safety-net programs like Medicaid and supplemental nutritional assistance, and to reduce future spending on Medicare and Social Security for some beneficiaries, which Mr. Biden opposes.— Jim TankersleyMr. Biden imposed new taxes on corporations like Amazon and a tax on stock buybacks, to help fund the health and climate bill he signed this summer.Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesClimate changeTo curb global warming, Mr. Biden has set an ambitious goal of cutting America’s greenhouse gas emissions roughly in half by 2030.The measure he signed this summer included $370 billion in incentives for electric utilities to increase their reliance on low-emission energy sources like solar and nuclear, for consumers to buy electric vehicles and for businesses to invest in energy efficiency. His Environmental Protection Agency has moved to limit emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and is preparing more regulations of the energy sector.Republicans opposed those climate efforts, and are set to mount congressional investigations into many of them. They could also seek to unwind some of the spending from the newly signed climate law and will likely challenge future regulations. They will also push legislation to speed up fossil fuel development by reducing federal regulation of new drilling projects.— Jim TankersleyHealth CareAfter a decade of elections with health care near the top of voter priorities, the big federal health programs are less central in this election. Republicans are not focused on repealing the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare, or making major changes to Medicare and Medicaid in the short term. If Republicans retake majorities, they plan extensive oversight of Mr. Biden’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, however, and much of the spending that accompanied it. They also hope to consider smaller initiatives, such as expanding access to telemedicine in Medicare and improving price transparency in health care, building on Trump administration initiatives that many Democrats also embrace. Without a president who can sign their more conservative-leaning bills or large enough majorities to overcome a veto, Republicans are likely to focus on legislative efforts that at least some Democrats can support..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.If Democrats retain control, they are likely to pursue a similar set of less polarized issues. Mr. Biden already tried and failed to pass major structural changes to Medicare and Medicaid as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the new law meant in part to bring down prescription drug prices.— Margot Sanger-KatzJudgesAfter a record-breaking start at filling vacancies on the federal bench, the Biden administration’s aggressive push to remake the courts would be slowed considerably — if not entirely stalled — by a Republican takeover of the Senate.Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the current and likely future Republican leader, has demonstrated his skill at thwarting judicial nominations. “If it did happen, Senator McConnell has made it pretty clear that he would not be very eager to confirm President Biden’s nominees and would do anything he could to delay filling seats until he could get a different president,” said Russ Feingold, a former Democratic senator from Wisconsin and head of the American Constitution Society. “He usually follows through on those statements and threats.”To date, the Senate has confirmed 84 judges nominated by Mr. Biden, including a Supreme Court justice, 25 appeals court judges and 58 district court judges — the most in decades in the first two years of a president’s term. The White House has advanced a diverse set of candidates, focusing on underrepresented ethnicities as well as those with less typical professional backgrounds like public defenders and civil rights lawyers.Even if Republicans make package deals to advance judicial nominees as has been done in the past, nominees who are considered more progressive would encounter extreme difficulties in a Republican-controlled Senate. Bracing for a slowdown, Mr. Feingold’s organization is urging Senate Democrats to confirm at least 30 more judges before the newly elected Congress takes office.— Carl HulseAbortionMr. Biden has promised to enshrine into law the national abortion protections that were repealed when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade if voters increase the Democratic margin in the Senate. “The only way it’s going to happen is if the American people make it happen,” he has said in his appeals to the public.Republicans, who once saw abortion restrictions as a galvanizing issue within the party, are now in open disagreement about how far those should go. Strict or near-total bans on abortions have become unpopular with Republican voters.Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is pushing for a national ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, but his proposal is unpopular even with senior Republicans, including Mr. McConnell, who consider it politically risky and a contradiction to the let-the-states-decide position the party had long articulated. Mr. Biden would certainly veto any stand-alone bill with such a limit even if it did land on his desk.— Katie RogersRepublicans, who once saw abortion restrictions as a galvanizing issue within the party, are now in open disagreement about how far those should go.Callaghan O’Hare for The New York TimesStudent LoansMr. Biden’s order canceling up to $20,000 of student-loan debt for as many as 40 million borrowers has already been targeted in a lawsuit filed by six Republican-led states, which claim the president overstepped his executive authority in issuing the policy on his own.A Republican-controlled Congress could try to halt the policy by including language in a potential spending package declaring that Mr. Biden lacks authority to move forward with the debt relief. But Mike Pierce, the executive director of the student borrower protection center, said other parts of Mr. Biden’s student loan agenda are at greater risk, including a plan to reduce payments on undergraduate loans to 5 percent of discretionary income, down from 10 percent to 15 percent in many existing plans.Implementing the new system would draw money from an appropriated budget that could be targeted by congressional Republicans. “There’s money that goes to the Education Department to administer the student loan programs and you can see that budget being a part of negotiations with Republicans,” Mr. Pierce said.— Zolan Kanno-YoungsRaceMr. Biden has worked to put racial equity at the center of his agenda, ensuring that billions of dollars in government spending are focused on minorities and poor women. Some efforts, including a plan to forgive the debts of Black and other minority farmers, have run into lawsuits filed by white farmers who questioned whether the government could offer debt relief based on race. Republican lawmakers have echoed the criticism. The president directed federal agencies to ensure that 40 percent of investments for clean energy, transit, housing and work force development reach disadvantaged or marginalized communities.Republican lawmakers have signaled they would try to stall the equity agenda through congressional investigations. The policies are also likely to be the focus of legislative battles and political attacks against the administration. Top Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee sent a letter to the administration last month accusing Mr. Biden of misusing his authority “in a broad, crosscutting fashion” by requiring that a portion of federal funding go to minority communities.Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee launched an investigation this month into a Treasury Department committee tasked with reviewing aspects of the economy that have harmed communities of color. The lawmakers said the council “would distract it from its core responsibilities which include ensuring a level playing field for all Americans.”— Zolan Kanno-YoungsI.R.S.The Biden administration is in the midst of an $80 billion bulk-up of the Internal Revenue Service, the tax collection agency that Republicans love to hate.Although the overhaul of the I.R.S. is in its early stages, the Treasury Department, which oversees the agency, has set ambitious goals for improving customer service and responsiveness to taxpayers. They have been trying to ramp up hiring and clear a backlog of millions of unprocessed tax returns.For years, Republicans have made it their mission to neuter the I.R.S. They are expected to use any leverage that they gain in the elections to scale back the agency’s funding.They have suggested that the 87,000 new hires that the I.R.S. plans to make will become a “shadow army” intended to target conservatives, and with Republicans controlling oversight committees there will be an intense spotlight on how the money is being spent. If Republicans retake the Senate, they will also have an opportunity to block Mr. Biden’s eventual nominee to be the next I.R.S. commissioner. (Treasury recently announced that the deputy commissioner would become acting commissioner in November.)— Alan RappeportEntitlementsEager to find an issue that will resonate with voters, Mr. Biden has revived a traditional Democratic campaign attack, arguing that keeping his party in power would protect Social Security and Medicare from Republican cutbacks. In a speech at the White House last month, the president warned that Republicans will put the social safety net programs on the “chopping block” if they take power.Any efforts from Republicans to enact changes to the entitlement programs over the next two years would be subject to Mr. Biden’s veto power.The long-term solvency of the programs is in doubt as the trust funds that support them are facing shortfalls in the next two decades.Republicans have not outlined a unified plan for how to deal with entitlements lately, but some have called for restructuring them or scaling them back. This, they say, would preserve them for the future. The most prominent proposal has come from Senator Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, that would allow Social Security and Medicare to “sunset” if Congress did not pass new legislation to extend them. Mr. McConnell has disavowed aspects of Mr. Scott’s agenda.— Alan RappeportConsumer ProtectionWith legislative options limited, Mr. Biden has been looking to executive branch agencies to help ease the pain that Americans are feeling from inflation. On Thursday, he touted a move by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to crack down on so-called “junk fees” that banks charge to consumers for overdrafting their accounts or depositing checks that bounce.Joined by Rohit Chopra, the director of the C.F.P.B., Mr. Biden said that the agency would be going after a wide range of unnecessary costs that are imposed on Americans by banks.But if Republicans have their way, the agency could see its powers dramatically diminished. A federal appeals court ruling this month said that the bureau’s funding that comes through the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, calling into question its power to regulate the finance industry.The lawsuit could take years to play out, but House Republicans have already said that they want to bring the independent agency under the congressional appropriations process. The Trump administration tried to zero out the bureau’s budget, so Republican control could eventually mean that it lacks the resources to be a rigorous regulator.— Alan Rappeport More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Income Taxes for All? Rick Scott Has a Plan, and That’s a Problem.

      by

      The “Plan to Rescue America” is dividing the party and cheering Democrats, and its author, Senate Republicans’ top campaign official, won’t stop talking about it.WASHINGTON — Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the somewhat embattled head of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, said one utterly indisputable thing on Thursday when he stood before a packed auditorium of supporters at the conservative Heritage Foundation: His plan for a G.O.P. majority would make everyone angry at him, Republicans included.It was an odd admission for the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. His leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has repeatedly told Mr. Scott to pipe down about his “11-Point Plan to Rescue America,” with its call to impose income taxes on more than half of Americans who pay none now, and to sunset all legislation after five years, presumably including Social Security and Medicare.It has divided his party, put Mr. Scott’s own candidates in awkward positions, and is already featured prominently in Democratic advertising. But after Thursday, it is clear the Republicans have not figured out how to address their Rick Scott problem.“Washington’s full of a bunch of do-nothing people who believe that no conservative idea can ever happen, nothing will change for the better as long as they’re in charge, and that’s why we’re going to get rid of them,” the senator said, ambiguous about who exactly “they” were. “So Republicans are going to complain about the plan. They’ll do it with anonymous quotes, some not so anonymous. They’ll argue that Democrats will use it against us in the election. I hope they do.”The senator insisted on the Heritage Foundation stage that his plan would raise taxes on no one, only to concede to reporters after the talk that it would — or that it wouldn’t, he couldn’t decide.“The people that are paying taxes right now — I’m not going to raise their rates; I’ve never done it,” he said, before adding: “I’m focused on the people that can go to work, and decided to be on a government program and not participate in this. I believe whether it’s just a dollar, we all are in this together.”But most adults who pay no income tax do work, and the plan makes no distinctions. “All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game, even if a small amount. Currently over half of Americans pay no income tax,” it states.Last year, 57 percent of U.S. households paid no income tax, but that was by design. Successive Republican tax cuts, including President Donald J. Trump’s tax cut of 2017, which greatly expanded the standard deduction, took tens of millions of workers off the income tax rolls, though virtually all of them pay Social Security, Medicare and sales taxes.And for all of Mr. Scott’s evasions, the criticism is not coming just from the “militant left” that he denounced. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated that ensuring all households pay at least $100 in income taxes would leave families making about $54,000 or less with more than 80 percent of the tax increase. Those making less than about $100,000 would shoulder 97 percent of the cost.His leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, right, has repeatedly told Mr. Scott to pipe down about his plan.Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” Mr. McConnell told reporters in early March. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people, and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.”For Democrats, Mr. Scott is a gift. The 2022 campaign is shaping up as a conventional midterm, focused on the economy under Democratic control. That means inflation, gas prices and candidate ties to an unpopular president.“If you’re in power and you’re presiding over inflation, sorry, it’s tough to be you,” Representative Patrick McHenry, Republican of North Carolina, told The Ripon Society, a conservative research group, this week.Mr. Scott’s plan has allowed Democrats to talk about the alternative: what Republicans would do with power. Mr. Scott’s plan is chock-full of language about making children say the Pledge of Allegiance, prohibiting the government from asking citizens their race, ethnicity or skin color, and declaring that “men are men, women are women and unborn babies are babies.”But its economic section has been the focus. Beyond taxing everyone, under the plan, all federal laws would sunset in five years. “If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again,” the plan says. Taken literally, that would leave the fate of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to the whims of a Congress that rarely passes anything so expansive.Democrats are gleefully calling attention to it, even going so far as to promote the Republican senator’s speaking engagement on Thursday.“The chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee has put it on record in a document,” said David Bergstein, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, “and we are taking his word for it.”Mr. Scott’s ideas threaten to bring Republicans back to an economic argument they waged — and lost — before Mr. Trump won over wide swaths of white working-class voters with his pledges to leave entitlements alone and cut their taxes.In 2012, the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, committed a disastrous gaffe when he was caught on tape describing 47 percent of Americans as wealth takers, not wealth makers. In 2001, Jim DeMint, a House member from South Carolina at the time, who like Mr. Romney went on to the Senate, asserted that if more than half of Americans paid no taxes, they would vote to expand government largess for themselves and make others pay for it.“How can a free nation survive when a majority of its citizens, now dependent on government services, no longer have the incentive to restrain the growth of government?” he asked during a Heritage Foundation lecture, calling for all Americans to pay some income taxes.The vision of affluent Republicans counseling struggling workers to pay more taxes while they pay less was central to Mr. Trump’s critique of the party in the 2016 campaign.And Mr. Scott is an unlikely bearer of his revanchist message. He’s the richest man in Congress, worth around $260 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2002, the sprawling hospital chain he ran agreed to pay more than $880 million to settle the Justice Department’s longest-running inquiry into health care fraud, including $250 million returned to Medicare to resolve charges contested by the government.Fellow Republicans are not rushing to embrace Mr. Scott’s plan.“I think it’s good that elected officials put out what they’re for, and so I support his effort to do it,” said Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, among the most endangered Republicans up for re-election in November. “That’s what he’s for.”But for Republican candidates, the issue is getting awkward. In Arizona, Jim Lamon, a Republican seeking to challenge the Democratic incumbent, Senator Mark Kelly, first called the plan “pretty good stuff” only to have his campaign retreat from that embrace.Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said of the plan, “It’s good that people offer ideas.” His Democratic challenger, Representative Val B. Demings, nevertheless ran an ad on social media accusing him of embracing it.At a Republican Senate debate in Ohio on Monday, the current front-runner, Mike Gibbons, called the plan “a great first draft in trying to set some things we all believe in,” adding, “The people that don’t believe them probably shouldn’t be Republicans.”J.D. Vance, a candidate aligned with Mr. Trump’s working-class appeal, fired back: “Why would we increase taxes on the middle class, especially when Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook pay a lower tax rate than any middle-class American in this room or in this country? It’s ridiculous.”Even as he denied his plan would do that, Mr. Scott on Thursday was bold in the criticism of his fellow Republicans, who are relying on him to help them win elections this fall. Timidity is “the kind of old thinking that got us exactly where we are today, where we don’t control the House, the White House or the Senate,” he said, adding: “It’s time to have a plan. It’s time to execute on a plan.” More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Ted Cruz Knows Which Side He’s On

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I think many Americans would give President Biden reasonably high marks for his handling of the war in Ukraine so far. His speech in Poland, in which he said, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” may have been provocative, and it might have his advisers scrambling to soften it, but it was right, and the right message to send about what should become of Vladimir Putin’s foul regime.Yet Biden still reminds me of George H.W. Bush, who handled the big foreign policy crises of his day with aplomb but wound up as a one-termer. What do you think of the comparison?Gail Collins: Hey, isn’t it interesting to recall that when Bush was fighting to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991, the big American ally was Russia? Those were the days, I guess. Just noticed that a Gallup poll found that right after the war, Bush had an 89 percent approval rating.Bret: Bush had the advantage of not having to face down a nuclear-armed adversary — thanks to an Israeli strike on Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor a decade earlier.Gail: And yet he got defeated for a second term by Bill Clinton. We could discuss the possibility of Biden suffering a similar fate — perceptions of a bad economy trump strong foreign policy. Except that Clinton’s genius was in portraying himself as a Democrat who normal Republicans didn’t have to fear. Very, very doubtful the next Republican presidential nominee is going to be able to turn that trick.Do you really think Biden would be walloped if people actually had to compare him to Trump, one on one, presuming the two of them ran again?Bret: I continue to have a hard time believing that Biden intends to run again, when he’s 81. I also don’t think Trump’s going to run — he’s damaged himself more deeply than he probably realizes with his imbecile praise of Putin and his continued election denialism.Gail: This scenario presumes Trump bows to reality. Hehehehehe. Sorry, continue.Bret: Fair point.Assuming your hypothetical turns out to be right, I’d probably place a small bet on Trump winning a rematch, awful as that is. I know Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were able to turn their presidencies around after difficult starts. But both men were naturally gifted political figures in a way Biden just isn’t. Both men were in touch with the center of American politics in a way Biden should be, but isn’t, because he steered too far to the left in his first year. And both men were sailing into calmer seas, economically speaking, as they prepared their re-election campaigns, whereas I don’t see inflation being tamed except at the price of a very steep recession.Would you bet on Biden in a rematch?Gail: Yeah, but I don’t think Biden is going to run. Although he’d be crazy to formally announce this soon and turn the bulk of his presidency into a lame-duck limp.Bret: Don’t agree that he should wait to announce, but that’s an argument for another time.Gail: And I don’t think his problem is steering too far to the left. His problem is that he doesn’t — never did have — that political genius for selling the country, or even his supporters, on a big message.Bret: Give ’em hell, Harry, he is not. But it looks like he’s trying with his plan to tax the very rich. Which … well, what do you think of it?Gail: Ah, Bret, our most reliable, perpetual disagreement. Yeah, given the fact that the richest Americans are now paying an effective tax rate around 8 percent, I would say a minimum of 20 percent on households worth more than $100 million is not a burden.Bret: Probably won’t get past the Senate, may be ruled an unconstitutional wealth tax by the Supreme Court and is reminiscent of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was supposed to hit only a handful of high-flyers in the 1970s but wound up taxing far less wealthy people. But the proposal could still be … popular. Anything else you’d like to see him do?Gail: I’d also be happy to see him lead a quest to control prescription drug prices: Let Medicare negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry and cap the cost of certain medications, like insulin. It’d be a debate people could really get into.Bret: I think job No. 1 for Biden is to make sure Putin experiences unmistakable defeat in Ukraine. A stalemated truce in which Russia steals more of Ukraine’s coastline, ports and energy riches will only entice Putin to create further crises so that he can “solve” them in exchange for Western concessions. I also think we should accept more than 100,000 Ukrainian refugees; we should welcome as many who want to come here with open arms.Gail: We should talk more about the refugees long term, but of course the immediate challenge is to support them in every way possible.Bret: If Romania can take in more than half a million refugees, we can take in at least as many.Gail: Not going to argue, but right now back to domestic matters …Bret: Biden’s other big task is doing what he can to ease the burden of inflation. We both know that’s mainly a job for the Fed. But the government can still ease all kinds of regulatory burdens that constrict supply chains, like employing members of the National Guards to make up for the trucker shortage. I’m also in favor of the proposal from Maggie Hassan and Mark Kelly — both Democratic senators — to suspend the federal tax on gasoline for the rest of the year, though I would only reinstate it once the price of gasoline falls below $3.50 a gallon, no matter whether that happens before November or after. Gas taxes are really regressive once you stop to think of the bite they take out of the pockets of working-class people who drive back and forth to work.Gail: Short-term gas price relief would be great, as long as it’s combined with long-term plans to fight climate change with energy-efficient cars and more mass transit. Although I know the latter tends to cause many conservative conservatives to shudder.On a completely different but totally fascinating topic: Ginni Thomas. Wife of a Supreme Court justice and now revealed as a very aggressive, deeply crazy activist in the Trump-really-won sideshow.Should we worry about her? Is she dangerous or just astonishingly weird?Bret: Depends on whether you think that being a fever-swamp conservative is dangerous, weird or just the depressing new normal. “All of the above” is also a possibility. Mrs. Thomas attended the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6. She urged the Trump team to feature Sidney Powell, the lawyer with bizarro theories about voting machine fraud. And she wrote Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, some texts right after the election was called for Biden, telling him to “stand firm” against “the greatest Heist in our History.”All of which says to me that I’m glad I’m not the one who gets to hang with Ginni Thomas, but de gustibus non est disputandum, as they used to say. Do you think her behavior should require Clarence Thomas to recuse himself in some cases?Gail: If they get an overturn-the-election case, or even anything relating to the Jan. 6 riots, I would say he’d either have to recuse or be impeached. Otherwise it’s hard to imagine enough pressure building. But I’d be happy to hear I’m wrong. What do you think?Bret: He’d have to recuse himself in those kinds of cases, because the appearance of a conflict of interest is now overwhelming. That said, if every public official were on the hook for nutty things done or said by spouses or family members, it would probably have unintended consequences nobody would like. For instance: Hunter Biden.Gail: I will refrain from dipping back into our Hunter Biden argument except to point out that some experts think he’s getting a reasonable price for his artwork these days. Lips sealed …Bret: But speaking of the Supreme Court, did you watch the Senate hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson? How do you think she did?Gail: Better than great.Bret: Agree. I don’t think her confirmation is in any doubt, especially now that Joe Manchin has come out in her favor, but I enjoyed watching her politely making mincemeat of Ted Cruz, who is a one-man reminder of why sentient people hate politicians. If Republicans were wiser, they’d register their disagreements with some of her positions but vote to confirm her on the principle that she’s fully qualified to serve on the high court. But … they won’t.Gail: Also watching the dreaded Marsha Blackburn asking Jackson to define “woman.” Glad we agree that Republicans aren’t wise.Bret: In the meantime, Gail, it looks like we have a new superinfectious sub-variant of Covid to keep us awake at night. Forget Omicron, now we’ve got Omigod.Gail: I’m going with Dr. Fauci’s theory that it’s not something to get frazzled about. Unless, of course, you haven’t been vaccinated, in which case there’s probably not any point in having a conversation.But I am appalled that Congress didn’t approve the $15.6 billion Biden wanted for tests, treatments and research on vaccines for new variants. If I’m going to side with the throw-away-masks crowd, I’m also going to side with the fund-the-support-system gang.Bret: If we’re going to start thinking of Covid as a relatively normal illness, maybe we need to stop treating it like a national emergency. What do you say we argue about this another day?The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The I.R.S. Can Register Voters Just as Well as the D.M.V.

      by

      Income tax forms are notoriously complicated, but there is one simple question that is missing: “Would you like to register to vote in your home state?” With over 150 million American households filing federal income tax returns each year, our annual ritual of tax filing is a missed opportunity for voter registration.While Americans are filling out their 1040s and Schedule Cs, they should also be asked if they would like to complete a voter registration form. The form, let’s call it a Schedule VR, would be separate from tax information, and would be available to all citizens, regardless of the amount of taxes paid or refunded. A Schedule VR would be the simplest way to create a national and nearly universal registration system.There is good evidence that tax-time voter registration would work. In Canada, annual income tax forms already offer voter registration. Overall, 96 percent of eligible voters appear on the Canadian voter registry, thanks in substantial part to the work of the Canada Revenue Agency. Elections Canada suggests that citizens “tick the box” every year on their income tax form to keep their address information up-to-date. By contrast, more than one in five eligible voters in the United States is not on the voter rolls. These unregistered voters are disproportionately likely to be young, to have lower incomes, and to be members of racial and ethnic minority groups.Adding a voter registration option to tax filing has three major advantages: breadth, accuracy and convenience. Americans are conscientious taxpayers who see tax filing as an important civic responsibility; a Schedule VR would help ensure our voter rolls are correct and secure, with less paperwork for the citizenry.Tax-time voter registration would build on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which brought easy registration to departments of motor vehicles and other government agencies across the country. Taxes are filed annually, far more frequently than most people’s trips to the DMV. About 90 percent of the U.S. population appears on an income tax return each year, and 99.5 percent of us are estimated to appear on at least one federal tax document (like a W2 or a 1099), which is higher than the declining fraction of Americans who hold driver’s licenses. The tax system has played a vital role in Covid relief delivery precisely because few agencies can match the reach of the Internal Revenue Service.Yes, adding voter registration to the tax filing process would represent a substantial increase in responsibility for the I.R.S. But there are precedents for the I.R.S. assisting tax filers in participating in important civic endeavors. In 1972, 1975 and 1980, Form 1040 included questions on behalf of the U.S. Census Bureau. Today, Form 1040 still has a check box allowing tax filers to donate three dollars to public campaign finance via the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. As Congress considers adding $80 billion to the I.R.S. budget, it should not overlook the full potential of tax filing to help shore up our democracy.Voter registration at tax filing would also conform to President Biden’s mandate for new federal action to promote voter registration and turnout. Mr. Biden’s Executive Order 14019 calls upon the heads of each federal agency to produce a comprehensive plan for how they can “provide access to voter registration services and vote-by-mail ballot applications in the course of activities or services that directly engage with the public.”For the I.R.S. to collect voter registration information and work with the states to update the voter rolls would require legislative action. But there are still immediate steps that can be taken. Janet Yellen, the secretary of the Treasury, and Charles Rettig, the I.R.S. commissioner, can mandate that voter registration services be provided at the nonprofit Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites that work with the I.R.S. to provide free tax preparation to over one million households a year.We already know that a program like this would reach underrepresented voters. In an experiment one of us conducted in 2018, tax filers at five sites in Dallas and Cleveland were offered voter registration forms. The participants were predominantly Black and Hispanic tax filers with an average household income of less than $30,000. The program doubled the likelihood that an unregistered person would get onto the voter rolls.In an appalling echo of Jim Crow, some states are weaponizing their voting laws to exclude voters, and especially voters of color, from participating in our democracy. Historically, federal intervention has been essential to the protection of voting rights; now is the time to use tax policy to increase voter access.Along with other legislation, like the urgently needed John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a Schedule VR would help counteract state efforts to restrict access to the ballot box. But even beyond the current political situation, we shouldn’t overlook a powerful tool we already have in hand to ensure that Americans have a reliable way to register to vote.Jeremy Bearer-Friend (@bearerfriend) is an associate professor at George Washington University Law School; Vanessa Williamson (@V_Williamson) is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Legal Threats Hover Over Trump as He Hints at a 2024 Bid

      by

      As the former president weighs another run for the White House, he’s confronting various investigations and lawsuits. Here’s a rundown.Donald Trump hit the campaign trail again last weekend, and he certainly seemed happy to be back in the spotlight. He bashed President Biden and undocumented immigrants, repeated his false claims of a stolen 2020 election, and hinted at a possible run for the presidency again in 2024.But as he contemplates a return to politics, he has a more immediate question to contend with: Will he be able to stay out of legal trouble?On Thursday, the Manhattan district attorney’s office charged the former president’s real estate company, the Trump Organization, with running a 15-year scheme to help executives avoid taxation. A top Trump executive, Allen Weisselberg, was accused of dodging taxes on $1.7 million in income; he surrendered to the D.A.’s office on Thursday morning.Mr. Weisselberg’s was the first indictment to come out of a lengthy investigation that is being conducted by that office, and it could signal a turning point. If he agrees to testify against the former president, Mr. Weisselberg would be a powerful witness: He has long been one of Mr. Trump’s closest financial advisers, and Mr. Trump once praised him for his willingness to do “whatever was necessary to protect the bottom line.”After the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Mr. Trump was impeached for a second time — something that hadn’t happened to any previous U.S. president. If he were to be indicted on a criminal charge, that too would be a first for a former president.Ed Rollins, the chairman of the Great America PAC, which backed Mr. Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns but has not pledged to support him in 2024, said that Mr. Trump remained the presumptive front-runner for the Republican nomination. Still, he said in an interview, the threat of criminal prosecution “certainly makes it more difficult” for Mr. Trump to claim the party’s mantle.“You have to be adding people, adding players, convincing people that, ‘My loss was detrimental to the country,’” Mr. Rollins added. “People are going to be saying: ‘Tell me why I should go back to you. Why should I put money into your campaign?’”And the Manhattan D.A.’s investigation is only one of a smattering of legal obstacles that Mr. Trump may need to overcome, as he considers a possible return. Here’s a look at the many investigations and lawsuits that he’s currently fighting — touching on his business dealings, accusations of misconduct toward women, and his role in drumming up the Capitol riot.Taxes and financial affairsMr. Weisselberg was indicted as part of a long-running investigation by Cyrus Vance, the district attorney for Manhattan. At Mr. Weisselberg’s arraignment on Thursday afternoon, prosecutors described a 15-year tax fraud scheme and leveled 15 felony counts against him, the Trump Organization and Trump Payroll Corporation.Mr. Vance has assembled a grand jury and is in the process of determining whether to bring charges against Mr. Trump; the body has already questioned a number of the former president’s associates. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Weisselberg’s personal tax and financial records, as well as those of his daughter-in-law.Letitia James, the New York attorney general, also opened a parallel investigation into whether the Trump Organization had manipulated property values to avoid taxes and gain other financial benefits. In May, Ms. James’s office announced that its investigation, which began as a civil concern, had expanded into the criminal realm and would join Mr. Vance’s inquiry.The former president’s niece, the psychiatrist and author Mary Trump, has also sued him for fraud. Last year, she filed a suit claiming that Mr. Trump had defrauded her out of tens of millions of dollars. She had claimed that when her father, Fred Trump Jr., died, she was prevented from accessing her stake in his will, and that her share was slowly depleted by Donald Trump and other family members. After Fred Trump Sr. died, the remaining Trump siblings sought to exclude Mary from the family holdings entirely, she said.She accepted a settlement in 2001, but after a 2018 Times investigation drew back the curtain on the family’s finances, she filed a lawsuit accusing her uncle and his siblings of fraud and breaching fiduciary trust. The suit is still pending.Defamation claimsThe most high-profile lawsuit against Donald Trump may be the one brought by E. Jean Carroll, a journalist and advice columnist, whose 2019 book accuses him of raping her in the 1990s. After Mr. Trump publicly denied the allegation and said Ms. Carroll was “not my type,” she sued him for damaging her reputation and career.When Mr. Trump was still in office, the Justice Department sought to stanch the lawsuit by arguing that he was legally protected from defamation suits filed over things he said while executing his duties as president. A federal judge ruled against the administration, but the agency’s lawyers appealed.Under Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Biden’s Justice Department has continued the appeal, saying that Mr. Trump’s remarks should be protected under the Federal Tort Claims Act.Another woman, Summer Zervos, sued Mr. Trump in 2017, days before he took office, saying that he had damaged her reputation and her financial well-being when he denied her accusation of sexual assault. The dispute stems from her time as a contestant on “The Apprentice,” when she claims he groped and kissed her against her will.Because he made the statement in question before becoming president, Mr. Trump’s remarks aren’t protected under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The suit is currently before the New York Court of Appeals.His actions on Jan. 6Members of Congress and Capitol Police officers have filed separate suits seeking to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his role in organizing and riling up the rioters who stormed the government building on Jan. 6.Representatives Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Eric Swalwell of California, both Democrats, have both filed suits arguing that Mr. Trump violated the so-called Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era law that makes it a crime for people to conspire to prevent elected officials from discharging their duties.In a different suit, a pair of Capitol Police officers who were injured on Jan. 6 are seeking damages from Mr. Trump for his part in the events of that day. The officers, James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, say in the suit that they were hit with bear spray, assaulted with flagpoles and crushed against a door by the attackers as they tried to fight them back.The attorney general of Washington, D.C., Karl Racine, has also opened an investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s incendiary language rose to the level of criminal incitement.On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Los impuestos de Donald Trump: los pasos que siguen en la investigación

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Los impuestos de Donald TrumpLos donativos del presidenteNuestra investigaciónEl pantano reinventado de TrumpHallazgos claveUna nota del editor ejecutivoAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyNueva YorkLos impuestos de Donald Trump: los pasos que siguen en la investigaciónUna sentencia de la Corte Suprema ha allanado el camino para que los fiscales comiencen a escudriñar los registros financieros de Trump.En 2019 el expresidente Donald Trump demandó por primera vez para bloquear una citación que buscaba acceder a sus impuestos personales y corporativos.Credit…Pete Marovich para The New York TimesWilliam K. Rashbaum, Ben Protess y 23 de febrero de 2021 a las 16:34 ETRead in EnglishTerabytes de datos. Docenas de fiscales, investigadores y contadores forenses escudriñando millones de páginas de documentos financieros. Una empresa consultora externa inmersa en los secretos de los bienes inmuebles comerciales y las estrategias fiscales.Esa es la monumental tarea que se avecina en la investigación penal del fiscal del distrito de Manhattan sobre el expresidente Donald Trump y su empresa familiar, después de que el lunes una orden de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos despejó el camino para que los fiscales obtengan ocho años de declaraciones de impuestos y otros registros financieros de Trump.La breve orden, sin firma, fue una rotunda victoria para los fiscales y una derrota para Trump, que culmina su amarga y prolongada batalla legal para bloquear la entrega de los registros —un esfuerzo que llegó dos veces a la Corte Suprema— e impulsa los esfuerzos de los fiscales después de que la demanda los estancó durante más de un año.La investigación es una de las dos indagaciones penales conocidas sobre Trump, la otra proviene de los fiscales de Georgia que examinan el esfuerzo de Trump para persuadir a los funcionarios locales revertir los resultados de las elecciones allí. Cuando Trump dejó su cargo, perdió la protección contra las acusaciones que le otorgaba la presidencia.El fiscal del distrito, Cyrus R. Vance Jr, emitió un escueto comunicado, que decía: “El trabajo continúa”. Un portavoz de su oficina declinó hacer más comentarios sobre la investigación.La siguiente fase, crucial en la investigación de Manhattan, comenzará en serio esta semana cuando los investigadores de la oficina del fiscal del distrito recojan los registros del bufete de abogados que representa a los contadores de Trump, Mazars USA, según personas con conocimiento del asunto, así como exfiscales y otros expertos que describieron los próximos pasos bajo la condición de anonimato.Los investigadores irán a la oficina del bufete de abogados en el condado neoyorquino de Westchester con una copia de la citación del gran jurado de agosto de 2019 que fue el centro de la demanda. Saldrán de ahí con un vasto tesoro de copias digitales de las declaraciones, resmas de estados financieros y otros registros y comunicaciones relacionados con los impuestos de Trump y los de sus empresas.Luego, los investigadores entregarán la masa de datos a la oficina de Vance, donde el equipo de fiscales, contadores forenses y analistas ha estado investigando a Trump y sus empresas por una amplia gama de posibles delitos financieros. Vance, un demócrata, ha estado examinando si Trump, su empresa y sus empleados cometieron fraudes de seguros, fiscales y bancarios, entre otros delitos, han dicho personas con conocimiento del asunto.Incluso antes de la sentencia de la Corte Suprema, la investigación se había calentado, al emitir la oficina de Vance más de una docena de citaciones en los últimos meses y entrevistar a testigos, incluidos los empleados del Deutsche Bank, uno de los principales prestamistas de Trump.Las citaciones son respecto a un aspecto central de la investigación de Vance, que se centra en si la empresa de Trump, la Organización Trump, infló el valor de algunas de sus propiedades emblemáticas para obtener los mejores préstamos posibles, al tiempo que rebajaba los valores para reducir los impuestos sobre la propiedad, han dicho personas con conocimiento del asunto. Los fiscales también están examinando las declaraciones de la Organización Trump a las compañías de seguros sobre el valor de varios activos.Ahora, armados con los registros de Mazars —que incluyen las declaraciones de impuestos, los registros comerciales en los que se basan y las comunicaciones entre la Organización Trump y sus contadores— los fiscales podrán ver una imagen más completa de las posibles discrepancias entre lo que la compañía dijo a sus prestamistas y a las autoridades fiscales.Los fiscales también han requerido a la Organización Trump los registros relacionados con la cancelación de impuestos sobre millones de dólares en honorarios de consultoría, algunos de los cuales parecen haber ido a la hija mayor del presidente, Ivanka Trump, un acuerdo reportado primero por The New York Times. La empresa entregó algunos de esos registros el mes pasado, dijeron dos personas con conocimiento del asunto, aunque los fiscales han cuestionado si la compañía ha respondido completamente al requerimiento.No está claro si los fiscales presentarán finalmente cargos contra Trump, la empresa o cualquiera de sus ejecutivos, incluidos los dos hijos adultos de Trump, Donald Trump Jr. y Eric Trump.En un extenso e indignado comunicado, que incluía una reiteración de muchas de sus conocidas quejas, Trump arremetió contra la Corte Suprema y la investigación, a la que caracterizó como “una continuación de la mayor cacería de brujas política de la historia de nuestro país”.Añadió: “Durante más de dos años, la ciudad de Nueva York ha estado investigando casi todas las transacciones que he realizado, incluyendo la búsqueda de declaraciones de impuestos que fueron realizadas por uno de los mayores y más prestigiosos bufetes de abogados y contadores de Estados Unidos”.Es probable que los abogados de Trump argumenten a los fiscales que Trump no pudo haber engañado al Deutsche Bank porque el banco, un sofisticado actor financiero, realizó su propio análisis de las propiedades de Trump. Cyrus R. Vance Jr, el fiscal del distrito de Manhattan, ha estado investigando a Trump y sus empresas por una amplia gama de posibles delitos financieros.Credit…Eduardo Munoz/ReutersMazars dijo en un comunicado que estaba al tanto de la nueva sentencia. “Como hemos mantenido a lo largo de este proceso, Mazars sigue comprometida con el cumplimiento de todas nuestras obligaciones profesionales y legales”, dice el comunicado.El mayor desafío para los fiscales de Vance será armar el rompecabezas de los registros fiscales, los estados financieros y los documentos de apoyo que las empresas de Trump proporcionaron a los contadores.A principios de este mes, Vance reclutó a Mark F. Pomerantz, una figura prominente en los círculos legales de Nueva York, para ayudar con la investigación. Pomerantz, un exfiscal federal de alto nivel con experiencia relevantee tanto en la investigación como en la defensa de casos complejos de cuello blanco y crimen organizado, se encargará de las interacciones con los testigos clave, entre otras tareas.Para obtener ayuda adicional, la oficina de Vance ha contratado a FTI, una gran empresa de consultoría que puede analizar algunos de los sectores en los que operan las empresas de Trump, incluido el inmobiliario comercial, así como cuestiones fiscales, dijeron personas con conocimiento del asunto.La firma también cargará la vasta cantidad de registros en un sistema de análisis de datos y gestión de documentos que puede utilizar para explorarlos en busca de patrones y apoyar así la investigación, dijeron las personas.La medida de los jueces de la Corte Suprema, que sin disentir negaron a Trump una suspensión de emergencia para que la corte pudiera revisar completamente las cuestiones del caso por segunda vez, no pondrá las declaraciones de impuestos de Trump en manos del Congreso ni las hará automáticamente públicas. Las leyes de confidencialidad del gran jurado mantendrán los registros en privado a menos que la oficina de Vance presente cargos e introduzca los documentos como prueba en un juicio.El público ya se ha enterado de muchas cosas sobre los impuestos de Trump a través de otros medios.The New York Times obtuvo datos de declaraciones de impuestos de más de dos décadas de Trump y los cientos de empresas que conforman su organización empresarial, e incluyen información detallada de sus dos primeros años en el cargo.El Times publicó el año pasado una serie de artículos de investigación basados en un análisis de los datos que mostraban que Trump no pagó prácticamente ningún impuesto sobre la renta durante muchos años y que actualmente se le realiza una auditoría en la que un fallo adverso podría costarle más de 100 millones de dólares. Él y sus empresas presentan declaraciones de impuestos por separado y emplean estrategias fiscales complicadas y a veces agresivas, según la investigación.Pero la acción de la Corte Suprema puso en marcha una serie de acontecimientos que podrían conducir a la extraordinaria posibilidad de un juicio penal para el expresidente. Como mínimo, el fallo arrebata a Trump el control de sus registros financieros más cercanos y el poder de decidir cuándo, si es que alguna vez, se pondrán a disposición de la inspección pública.Trump y sus abogados han luchado durante mucho tiempo para mantener los registros en secreto. Después de prometer durante la campaña de 2016 que publicaría sus declaraciones de impuestos, como han hecho todos los candidatos presidenciales durante al menos 40 años, se negó a hacerlo, lo que proporcionó una línea persistente de crítica para los demócratas y otros adversarios.Además de luchar contra el requerimiento de la oficina de Vance en los tribunales, Trump interpuso una demanda para bloquear el pedido del Congreso y desafió con éxito una ley de California que requiere que los candidatos a las primarias presidenciales publiquen sus declaraciones.El fallo de la Corte Suprema se produce casi 18 meses después de que Trump demandó por primera vez a Vance, en un intento de bloquear el requerimiento de su oficina y estimulando una batalla legal que llegó a la Corte Suprema por primera vez el verano pasado. En una decisión histórica en julio, la corte rechazó el argumento de Trump de que, como presidente en ejercicio, era inmune a la investigación. El caso fue litigado por el consejero general de Vance, Carey Dunne, quien ayuda a dirigir la investigación.Pero la corte dijo que Trump podía impugnar por otros motivos, como relevancia y alcance. Trump inició entonces una nueva batalla legal, argumentando que el requerimiento era demasiado amplio y equivalía a acoso político. Tras perder con ese argumento en los tribunales inferiores, Trump pidió a la Corte Suprema que aplazara la ejecución de la citación de Vance hasta que pudiera decidir si atendía la apelación de Trump.Fue esa solicitud la que la Corte Suprema negó, terminando efectivamente la cruzada legal del expresidente, dijeron los expertos legales.“A Trump no se le dará deferencia como expresidente”, dijo Anne Milgram, una exasistente del fiscal de distrito en Manhattan que luego sirvió como fiscala general de Nueva Jersey. “Bajo los ojos de las leyes del estado de Nueva York, él tiene los mismos derechos que otros en el estado. Ni más ni menos”.Reed Brodsky, un veterano abogado defensor de cuello blanco y exfiscal federal, dijo que los abogados de Trump probablemente le dirán que los nuevos intentos de bloquear la citación podrían socavar su capacidad de argumentar los méritos de su defensa.“Corren el riesgo, si siguen presentando argumentos que son frívolos, de socavar su credibilidad”, dijo Brodsky.Jonah E. Bromwich More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Taxes: Here's What's Next in the Manhattan D.A.'s Investigation

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Trump’s TaxesWhat’s NextOur InvestigationA 2016 WindfallProfiting From FameTimeline18 Key FindingsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyHere’s What’s Next in the Trump Taxes InvestigationA Supreme Court ruling has paved the way for prosecutors to begin combing through Mr. Trump’s financial records.Former President Donald J. Trump first sued to block a subpoena seeking his personal and corporate taxes in 2019.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesWilliam K. Rashbaum, Ben Protess and Feb. 22, 2021Updated 2:35 p.m. ETTerabytes of data. Dozens of prosecutors, investigators and forensic accountants sifting through millions of pages of financial documents. An outside consulting firm drilling down on the arcana of commercial real estate and tax strategies.That is the monumental task that lies ahead in the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal investigation into former President Donald J. Trump and his family business after a United States Supreme Court order on Monday cleared the way for prosecutors to obtain eight years worth of Mr. Trump’s tax returns and other financial records.The brief, unsigned order was a resounding victory for the prosecutors and defeat for Mr. Trump, capping his bitter and protracted legal battle to block the release of the records — an effort that twice reached the Supreme Court — and delivering a jolt to the prosecutors’ efforts after the lawsuit stalled them for more than a year.The investigation is one of two known criminal inquiries into Mr. Trump, the other coming from prosecutors in Georgia scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s effort to persuade local officials to undo the election results there. When Mr. Trump left office, he lost the protection against indictment that the presidency afforded him.The district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., issued a terse statement, saying: “The work continues.” A spokesman for his office declined to comment further on the investigation.The crucial next phase in the Manhattan inquiry will begin in earnest this week when investigators for the district attorney’s office collect the records from the law firm that represents Mr. Trump’s accountants, Mazars USA, according to people with knowledge of the matter, as well as former prosecutors and other experts who described the next steps on the condition of anonymity.The investigators, carrying a copy of the August 2019 grand jury subpoena that was at the heart of the lawsuit, will go to the law firm’s office in New York’s Westchester County. They will leave with a vast trove of digital copies of the returns, reams of financial statements and other records and communications relating to Mr. Trump’s taxes and those of his businesses.Then, the investigators will deliver the mass of data to the office of Mr. Vance, where the team of prosecutors, forensic accountants and analysts have been investigating Mr. Trump and his companies for a wide range of possible financial crimes. Mr. Vance, a Democrat, has been examining whether Mr. Trump, his company and its employees committed insurance, tax and banking fraud, among other crimes, people with knowledge of the matter have said.Even before the Supreme Court ruling, the investigation had heated up, with Mr. Vance’s office issuing more than a dozen subpoenas in recent months and interviewing witnesses, including employees of Deutsche Bank, one of Mr. Trump’s top lenders.The subpoenas relate to a central aspect of Mr. Vance’s inquiry, which focuses on whether Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, inflated the value of some of his signature properties to obtain the best possible loans, while lowballing the values to reduce property taxes, people with knowledge of the matter have said. The prosecutors are also examining the Trump Organization’s statements to insurance companies about the value of various assets.Now armed with the records from Mazars — including the tax returns, the business records on which they are based and communications between the Trump Organization and its accountants — prosecutors will be able to see a fuller picture of potential discrepancies between what the company told its lenders and tax authorities.The prosecutors have also subpoenaed the Trump Organization for records related to tax write-offs on millions of dollars in consulting fees, some of which appear to have gone to the president’s elder daughter, Ivanka Trump, an arrangement first reported by The New York Times. The company turned over some of those records last month, two people with knowledge of the matter said, though the prosecutors have questioned whether the company has fully responded to the subpoena.It remains unclear whether the prosecutors will ultimately file charges against Mr. Trump, the company, or any of its executives, including Mr. Trump’s two adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump.In a lengthy and angry statement that included a reiteration of many of his familiar grievances, Mr. Trump lashed out at the Supreme Court and the investigation, which he characterized as “a continuation of the greatest political Witch Hunt in the history of our Country.” He added: “For more than two years, New York City has been looking at almost every transaction I’ve ever done, including seeking tax returns which were done by among the biggest and most prestigious law and accounting firms in the U.S.”Mr. Trump’s lawyers are likely to argue to prosecutors that Mr. Trump could not have duped Deutsche Bank because the bank, a sophisticated financial player, conducted its own analysis of Mr. Trump’s properties.Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, has been investigating Mr. Trump and his companies for a wide range of possible financial crimes.Credit…Eduardo Munoz/ReutersMazars said in a statement that it was aware of the new ruling. “As we have maintained throughout this process, Mazars remains committed to fulfilling all of our professional and legal obligations,” the statement said.The biggest challenge for Mr. Vance’s prosecutors will be to piece together the jigsaw puzzle of tax records, financial statements and the supporting documents Mr. Trump’s companies provided to the accountants. Early this month, Mr. Vance enlisted a prominent figure in New York legal circles, Mark F. Pomerantz, to help with the investigation. Mr. Pomerantz, a former senior federal prosecutor with significant experience both investigating and defending complex white-collar and organized crime cases, will handle interactions with key witnesses, among other tasks.For additional help, Mr. Vance’s office has hired FTI, a large consulting company that can analyze some of the industries in which Mr. Trump’s companies operate, including commercial real estate, as well as tax issues, people with knowledge of the matter said.The firm will also load the trove of records into a data analysis and document management system that it can use to explore them and seek patterns in support of the investigation, the people said.The action by the Supreme Court justices, who without noted dissent denied Mr. Trump an emergency stay so the court could fully review issues in the case for a second time, will not put Mr. Trump’s tax returns in the hands of Congress or make them automatically public. Grand jury secrecy laws will keep the records private unless Mr. Vance’s office files charges and enters the documents into evidence at a trial.The public has already learned a great deal about Mr. Trump’s taxes through other means. The New York Times obtained tax-return data extending over more than two decades for Mr. Trump and the hundreds of companies that make up his business organization, including detailed information from his first two years in office.The Times published a series of investigative articles last year based on an analysis of the data showing that Mr. Trump paid virtually no income tax for many years and that he is currently under an audit in which an adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million. He and his companies file separate tax returns and employ complicated and sometimes aggressive tax strategies, the investigation found.But the Supreme Court’s action set in motion a series of events that could lead to the extraordinary possibility of a criminal trial for former president. At a minimum, the ruling wrests from Mr. Trump control of his most closely held financial records and the power to decide when, if ever, they would be made available for public inspection.Mr. Trump and his lawyers have long fought to keep the records secret. After promising during the 2016 campaign that he would release his tax returns, as every presidential candidate has done for at least 40 years, he refused to do so, providing a persistent line of criticism for Democrats and other adversaries.In addition to fighting the subpoena from Mr. Vance’s office in court, Mr. Trump sued to block the congressional subpoena and successfully challenged a California law requiring presidential primary candidates to release their returns.The Supreme Court’s ruling comes nearly 18 months after Mr. Trump first sued Mr. Vance, seeking to block the subpoena from his office and spurring a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court for the first time last summer. In a landmark decision in July, the court rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that as a sitting president, he was immune from investigation. The case was argued by Mr. Vance’s general counsel, Carey Dunne, who is helping lead the investigation.But the court said Mr. Trump could challenge the subpoena on other grounds, such as its relevance and scope. Mr. Trump then launched a new legal fight, arguing that the subpoena was overly broad and amounted to political harassment. After losing that argument in the lower courts, Mr. Trump asked the Supreme Court to delay enforcement of Mr. Vance’s subpoena until it could decide whether to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal.It was that request that the Supreme Court denied, effectively ending the former president’s legal quest, legal experts said.“Trump will not be given deference as a former president,” said Anne Milgram, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan who later served as New Jersey’s attorney general. “Under the eyes of the laws of the state of New York, he has the same rights as others in the state. Neither more nor less.”Reed Brodsky, a longtime white-collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said that Mr. Trump’s lawyers will likely tell him that further attempts to block the subpoena could undermine their ability to argue the merits of his defense.“They’re at risk, if they continue to make arguments that are frivolous, of undercutting their credibility,” Mr. Brodsky said.Jonah E. Bromwich and Maggie Haberman contributed reporting. Kitty Bennett contributed research.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More