truthout--2020-10-10--Unsettling Signs of Ballot Invalidation Emerge as Mail-in Voting Picks Up

When Celia Rodriguez headed to the post office on Sept. 28 , she brought with her two stamped envelopes containing her and her daughter ’ s mail-in ballots for the November election .
“ We wanted to get our ballots in , ” said Rodriguez , who lives in Manhattan .
“ You know , there ’ s all this talk about the ballots not getting where they need to be and not counting.
” So the two filled out the ballots and put a stamp on the corner of each envelope .
But upon arriving at the post office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mailing her ballot was 15 cents short .
There was no indication on the envelope that extra postage was necessary .
It wasn ’ t an issue for Rodriguez , a retired schoolteacher with a master ’ s in early childhood education .
In the end , 30 cents was all it took total to get the two ballots mailed .
But the experience shook her enough that she alerted her local representative , New York State Assembly member Yuh-Line Niou , to the situation .
“ Why don ’ t we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referring to the need for additional postage .
“ That ’ s important information.
” Complaints to Niou over postage were not limited to the Rodriguez family that Monday , and as the day dragged on , it became clear that problems were not unique to her district .
In addition to confusing postage requirements , ballots across the city were being delivered to the wrong address .
“ I ’ m just very worried that there are different things for different folks , ” Niou said .
“ I think that people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mail-in ballots which is terrible because , you know , other states have had really good mail-in ballot systems .
We ’ re really behind , and not being diligent.
” Problems with early and mail-in voting are popping up nationwide , in important states like Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Virginia .
Although the post office has promised to deliver ballots irrespective of postage , as the agency told Reuters in August , the persistence of issues around the vote are causing headaches and concern for people like Rodriguez .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Midwest told The Appeal that the blame for vote-by-mail irregularities largely lies with boards of elections — not the postal service .
If postage is an issue , the employee said , voters need to recognize what that really represents .
“ The ballots are quite unwieldy so the automated system might try and claim you need postage , ” said the employee , who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity out of concerns for his employment .
“ But as far as voting , that would be a poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive director Kat Calvin , the real issues with vote-by-mail are really just beginning because ballots are starting to be mailed out .
“ It ’ s probably only going to get worse , ” Calvin said .
While New York is seeing an outsize number of problems , other states are sure to see complications as well .
“ We still have states changing laws every day , ” said Calvin .
“ There ’ s dozens of lawsuits in every state .
So I think people are just feeling confused and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopeless.
” Some Republican state lawmakers , like Texas Governor Greg Abbott , have taken deliberate steps that are making it more difficult for people to vote .
A rule change that Abbott put into effect on Oct. 2 limits the number of drop-off places for absentee ballots to one per county .
Critics of the move say it will almost certainly have a deleterious effect on voting in the state , where some counties are thousands of square miles wide .
In Iowa , over 100,000 ballot requests are in limbo after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sought to invalidate request forms with pre-filled voter information .
Voters in Indiana are reporting problems with improperly initialed ballots .
Narrow limitations on applying for absentee voting are creating issues for Mississippi voters .
And in Philadelphia , voters waited for hours in lines last week at one of the city ’ s first-to-open one-stop shops for registering , filling out , and casting absentee ballots .
The delays threw the state ’ s ability to handle the election into question .
Sarah Brannon , managing attorney of the ACLU Voting Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election cycle .
She told The Appeal that concerns over Philadelphia ’ s elections were a bit overblown , in her view .
She said the state is doing its best to ensure that it abides by Act 77 , a 2019 law passed by a broad bipartisan state coalition that allows people to vote by mail for any reason for up to 50 days before Election Day .
The law is now the centerpiece of efforts to address COVID-19 ’ s effect on the ballot .
“ I think it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see in other places too , ” said Brannon .
“ They ’ re implementing processes that they haven ’ t had before or haven ’ t used before in such large volume for people who need them because of COVID — and that ’ s contributing to things like unexpected long lines at the city hall in Pennsylvania.
” Brannon told The Appeal that vote-by-mail rules and regulations vary widely throughout the country , and even within states .
Further , many boards of elections are not set up to handle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of voters choosing to send their ballots in by mail .
“ In most places in the United States — not all of them , because there are some states that have been voting by mail for many years without trouble or issue or incident — but in many places in the country , vote by mail has not historically been the most common way to vote , ” Brannon said .
Brannon said her advice to voters is , first , that they call their local elected officials and ask if postage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the directions on the ballot envelope itself .
“ Many people will put their ballots in the mail without worrying about the postage , ” said Brannon .
Although there ’ s a concerted , nationwide effort to get postage payment covered , it ’ s still unclear if that will come in time to address the November election , Brannon said .
As for the technology that the post office uses to handle ballots , it ’ s largely automated and shouldn ’ t be an issue , she said .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are still concerns over whether they will be accepted .
Issues around “ naked ballots ” — votes sent into voting centers without a necessary second envelope inside the mailing envelope — and other technical problems could lead to widespread invalidation .
Noting that half a million ballots were thrown out during the primaries , Spread the Vote ’ s Calvin pointed to the increased turnout and varied rules in the general election and warned that the likelihood is high that even more votes will be contested and ultimately rejected .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anybody is going to solve these problems in the next few weeks — we have , what , four weeks until the election ?
— that they haven ’ t solved in the last seven months , ” Calvin said .
The Appeal is a non-profit media organization that produces news and commentary on how policy , politics , and the legal system affect America ’ s most vulnerable people .

When Celia Rodriguez headed to the post office on Sept. 28, she brought with her two stamped envelopes containing her and her daughter’s mail-in ballots for the November election.
“We wanted to get our ballots in,” said Rodriguez, who lives in Manhattan. “You know, there’s all this talk about the ballots not getting where they need to be and not counting.”
So the two filled out the ballots and put a stamp on the corner of each envelope. But upon arriving at the post office, Rodriguez found that the postage for mailing her ballot was 15 cents short. There was no indication on the envelope that extra postage was necessary.
It wasn’t an issue for Rodriguez, a retired schoolteacher with a master’s in early childhood education. In the end, 30 cents was all it took total to get the two ballots mailed. But the experience shook her enough that she alerted her local representative, New York State Assembly member Yuh-Line Niou, to the situation.
“Why don’t we know about that?” asked Rodriguez, referring to the need for additional postage. “That’s important information.”
Complaints to Niou over postage were not limited to the Rodriguez family that Monday, and as the day dragged on, it became clear that problems were not unique to her district. In addition to confusing postage requirements, ballots across the city were being delivered to the wrong address.
“I’m just very worried that there are different things for different folks,” Niou said. “I think that people are really not able to simply trust the mail-in ballots which is terrible because, you know, other states have had really good mail-in ballot systems. We’re really behind, and not being diligent.”
Problems with early and mail-in voting are popping up nationwide, in important states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Although the post office has promised to deliver ballots irrespective of postage, as the agency told Reuters in August, the persistence of issues around the vote are causing headaches and concern for people like Rodriguez.
One post office employee and union steward in the Midwest told The Appeal that the blame for vote-by-mail irregularities largely lies with boards of elections — not the postal service. If postage is an issue, the employee said, voters need to recognize what that really represents.
“The ballots are quite unwieldy so the automated system might try and claim you need postage,” said the employee, who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity out of concerns for his employment. “But as far as voting, that would be a poll tax.”
According to Spread the Vote executive director Kat Calvin, the real issues with vote-by-mail are really just beginning because ballots are starting to be mailed out. “It’s probably only going to get worse,” Calvin said.
***
While New York is seeing an outsize number of problems, other states are sure to see complications as well.
“We still have states changing laws every day,” said Calvin. “There’s dozens of lawsuits in every state. So I think people are just feeling confused and worried and like the whole system is hopeless.”
Some Republican state lawmakers, like Texas Governor Greg Abbott, have taken deliberate steps that are making it more difficult for people to vote. A rule change that Abbott put into effect on Oct. 2 limits the number of drop-off places for absentee ballots to one per county. Critics of the move say it will almost certainly have a deleterious effect on voting in the state, where some counties are thousands of square miles wide.
In Iowa, over 100,000 ballot requests are in limbo after the Trump campaign and Republican Party groups sought to invalidate request forms with pre-filled voter information. Voters in Indiana are reporting problems with improperly initialed ballots. Narrow limitations on applying for absentee voting are creating issues for Mississippi voters. And in Philadelphia, voters waited for hours in lines last week at one of the city’s first-to-open one-stop shops for registering, filling out, and casting absentee ballots. The delays threw the state’s ability to handle the election into question.
Sarah Brannon, managing attorney of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, is focused on Pennsylvania this election cycle. She told The Appeal that concerns over Philadelphia’s elections were a bit overblown, in her view. She said the state is doing its best to ensure that it abides by Act 77, a 2019 law passed by a broad bipartisan state coalition that allows people to vote by mail for any reason for up to 50 days before Election Day. The law is now the centerpiece of efforts to address COVID-19’s effect on the ballot.
“I think it’s part of something you’re going to see in other places too,” said Brannon. “They’re implementing processes that they haven’t had before or haven’t used before in such large volume for people who need them because of COVID — and that’s contributing to things like unexpected long lines at the city hall in Pennsylvania.”
Brannon told The Appeal that vote-by-mail rules and regulations vary widely throughout the country, and even within states. Further, many boards of elections are not set up to handle the operational challenges from a high volume of voters choosing to send their ballots in by mail.
“In most places in the United States — not all of them, because there are some states that have been voting by mail for many years without trouble or issue or incident — but in many places in the country, vote by mail has not historically been the most common way to vote,” Brannon said.
Brannon said her advice to voters is, first, that they call their local elected officials and ask if postage is necessary and make sure to follow the directions on the ballot envelope itself.
“Many people will put their ballots in the mail without worrying about the postage,” said Brannon.
Although there’s a concerted, nationwide effort to get postage payment covered, it’s still unclear if that will come in time to address the November election, Brannon said. As for the technology that the post office uses to handle ballots, it’s largely automated and shouldn’t be an issue, she said.
Even once ballots are turned in, however, there are still concerns over whether they will be accepted. Issues around “naked ballots” — votes sent into voting centers without a necessary second envelope inside the mailing envelope — and other technical problems could lead to widespread invalidation.
Noting that half a million ballots were thrown out during the primaries, Spread the Vote’s Calvin pointed to the increased turnout and varied rules in the general election and warned that the likelihood is high that even more votes will be contested and ultimately rejected.
“I don’t think that anybody is going to solve these problems in the next few weeks — we have, what, four weeks until the election? — that they haven’t solved in the last seven months,” Calvin said.
The Appeal is a non-profit media organization that produces news and commentary on how policy, politics, and the legal system affect America’s most vulnerable people.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-11--Colleges Pander to Trump in Effort to Stifle Campus Organizing

In mid-July , President Trump gave a speech in which he repeated the frequently invoked right-wing claim that U.S. colleges and universities have become bastions of “ radical left indoctrination.
” The solution , he said , was to empower the Treasury department to “ re-examine their tax-exempt status and/or funding.
” Activists responded quickly and denounced the assertion as a blatant attempt to silence those who oppose the administration ’ s racism , sexism , homophobia , classism and xenophobia .
But right-wing politicians are not the only ones threatening progressive voices in academia .
Colleges and universities have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suppress these voices .
Some have zeroed in on outspoken progressives , threatening them with censure or dismissal unless they quiet down .
Other campuses have responded with greater subtlety .
For example , at some schools , COVID-19 safety protocols have been selectively deployed to ban events or limit the number of people attending overtly political programs , while permitting non-politically-charged events to involve larger crowds .
In other places the demands of campus activists have been ignored , while on still other campuses , individuals have been gaslighted , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figments of overly active imaginations .
Uma Kumar-Montei , an undergraduate double-majoring in neuroscience and political science at Tulane University in New Orleans , told Truthout that students mobilized shortly after classes began in late August to protest police brutality and demand that the $ 9 million currently spent on campus security be redirected to the low-income community surrounding the school .
“ We marched to a park near campus .
Everyone was masked and stayed socially distanced , ” Kumar-Montei reports .
“ There were several hundred people and everything went smoothly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest , two students got an email from the Office of Student Life saying that the gathering has been a violation of Tulane ’ s social distancing protocols .
It was ridiculous since the dorms are open and indoor classes with more than 50 people are meeting .
The email to the two was also completely arbitrary and no one knows why they were targeted.
” Although the pair were not threatened with expulsion , the group that organized the protest — simply called The Movement — was told that future events involving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be permitted .
In addition , the administration demanded the names and phone numbers of all event participants , allegedly for contact tracing .
“ It ’ s clear that they are using COVID-19 to crack down on campus organizing , ” Kumar-Montei says .
“ Before the August protest , we evaluated the risks we should and should not be taking .
We did not want to endanger anyone or prevent anyone from going to school.
” The demands , she continues , were thoughtfully developed after months of discussion .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NOLA police , with the same weapons and the same arrest powers , ” Kumar-Montei says .
“ Since the fall semester began , the increase in patrols on and near campus have been hard to ignore .
We have to wonder if this is happening because of COVID or if the uptick is because they saw us protesting and want to scare us.
” Organizers emphasize that they are taking COVID-19 protocols extremely seriously , but say that administrations are exploiting the virus ’ s threat to crack down on dissent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstration and campus free speech , while still demanding students return to group housing and packed classrooms , is dishonest , ” says Jasmine Banks , Director of UnKoch My Campus , a national organization working to limit the impact of right-wing funders on curricula and campus life .
“ This is just the latest tactic to subvert accountability and governance at all costs.
” On the campus of Rice University in Houston , Texas , students are sitting-in to demand the removal of a statue of William Marsh Rice , the school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , started by student Shifa Abdul Rahman , has to date been ignored by the school administration .
Instead , administrators have deferred to a Task Force on Slavery , Segregation , and Racial Injustice which is expected to issue recommendations in 2021 .
“ The administration is dragging its feet , ” senior Aurora Kesler told Truthout .
“ The students want the Rice statue removed and a statue of Raymond L. Johnson , the first Black student admitted to Rice in 1964 , erected in its place.
” There is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she continues , citing a petition that had garnered nearly 3,000 signatures by the end of September .
Rice students also want the administration to respond to a document , Tangible Ways to Improve the Black Experience as Demanded by Black Students , that was written by an ad hoc group over the summer .
Among its demands : an increase in the number of Black students admitted to the college ; transparent hiring and promotion criteria for Black employment and advancement ; a more diverse curriculum ; and the creation of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black students to meet .
The university ’ s lack of response has led to great frustration , Kesler says , something that the Rice Thresher , a student newspaper , has affirmed .
“ Students are protesting now and deserve acknowledgement now , not in a year when the [ Task Force ’ s ] research is released , ” an editorial in the Thresher concluded .
But as frustrating as it is to be ignored , getting in the crosshairs of a college administration can be equally unsettling .
Yulia Gilichinskaya @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Digital Media at the University of California-Santa Cruz .
Last fall , she and other graduate teaching assistants withheld grades as part of a job action to demand an increase in their monthly stipend .
“ We received student conduct summonses for violating the Student Code of Conduct , ” Gilichinskaya told Truthout .
“ Our position was that they could not use the Student Code of Conduct to punish workers .
The administration treated us as if we were only students even though we were also workers .
This retaliatory response motivated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were all fired .
The sanctions came in waves ; the first wave was in February and the last in May.
” Although 41 of 42 fired workers still connected to the university were eventually reinstated , Carlos H. Cruz was the sole student not to be rehired .
“ The UC has levied several Student Conduct Codes against me and decided to give me a two-year suspension , ” Cruz explains .
“ The suspension will push me out of the Ph.D. program I had been in , in history .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was a ringleader and the cause of many of the disturbances that the university experienced .
I am being singled out , I believe , and scapegoated , for a collective action .
I feel that I am being criminalized for student activism Cruz has challenged the sanction , most recently attending an early October hearing to contest claims that he occupied administrative offices without authorization ; grabbed at a police officer in an effort to disarm him ; obstructed a roadway ; threatened the health and safety of university employees ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuting the charges , Cruz says that he was simply exercising his First Amendment right to free speech during a labor dispute and was acting in concert with other teaching assistants and student activists .
He and his fellow organizers remain disturbed by the university ’ s decision to focus on him , and him alone , as a campus dissident .
“ Carlos is outspoken , but he was not the sole leader , ” Gilichinskaya says .
“ In my mind , his targeting was racially motivated.
” And it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as faculty , too , have been castigated for their activism .
Shortly after September ’ s two-day # ScholarStrike , organized by professors Kevin Gannon and Anthea Butler , two strikers received notice that their participation violated the Faculty Codes of Conduct at their universities .
James M. Thomas , an associate professor of sociology at the University of Mississippi , and sociology professor Wendy Leo Moore of Texas A & M , were among the thousands of academics who participated in the event , meant to give faculty a chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duties and classes ” and engage in teach-ins about racial justice , policing and racism .
Thomas told students in the three online classes he is teaching this semester that he would not be lecturing , holding office hours , or responding to emails during the strike .
Apparently , state auditor Shad White got wind of this and charged Thomas with violating a law that prohibits public employees in Mississippi from taking part in work stoppages or strikes .
Likewise , Wendy Leo Moore was told that she , too , had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public workers .
Although Moore did not respond to Truthout ’ s interview request , Thomas says that he has not been suspended .
What ’ s more , he has not received word from the university about what disciplinary action it intends to pursue .
“ You can call it a bit of a holding pattern , ” he reports .
“ We have codified processes for certain kinds of misconduct — academic or fiscal — but none of my actions fit these definitions of misconduct so I am not exactly sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside of what ’ s in the Faculty Handbook.
” A long-time anti-racist activist , Thomas says that he participated in # ScholarStrike as a way to draw increased attention to “ the continued pervasiveness of racism within the criminal justice system , including police violence toward Black people and other communities of color.
” And while he is heartened by the support he and Moore have received — nearly 900 academics from all over the US have signed a letter demanding that University of Mississippi and Texas A & M “ disavow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these two professors ” — he nonetheless finds it disturbing that institutions that purport to support academic freedom and equal opportunity are taking this stance .
Perhaps their institutional temerity stems , in part , from a fear of losing federal funding since Trump has told universities that their tax-exempt status might be rescinded if they persist in “ indoctrination , not education.
” Thanks to an influx of dollars from conservative donors , groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ; The National Association of Scholars ; The National Bureau @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Excellence in Education have spent the last four years lamenting what they call “ brute intimidation ” of Trump supporters on campus , an indignity they see as weakening the body politic and loosening the grip of capitalism on the American psyche .
Indeed , as colleges grapple with COVID , reduced enrollments , and budgetary shortfalls , it is disappointing , but not surprising , that they ’ re pushing back against the demands of their students and faculty .
Truthout attempted to reach administrators at Rice , Tulane , UN-Santa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas A & M .
They did not respond .

In mid-July, President Trump gave a speech in which he repeated the frequently invoked right-wing claim that U.S. colleges and universities have become bastions of “radical left indoctrination.” The solution, he said, was to empower the Treasury department to “re-examine their tax-exempt status and/or funding.”
Activists responded quickly and denounced the assertion as a blatant attempt to silence those who oppose the administration’s racism, sexism, homophobia, classism and xenophobia.
But right-wing politicians are not the only ones threatening progressive voices in academia. Colleges and universities have also taken several tacks in an attempt to suppress these voices. Some have zeroed in on outspoken progressives, threatening them with censure or dismissal unless they quiet down. Other campuses have responded with greater subtlety.
For example, at some schools, COVID-19 safety protocols have been selectively deployed to ban events or limit the number of people attending overtly political programs, while permitting non-politically-charged events to involve larger crowds. In other places the demands of campus activists have been ignored, while on still other campuses, individuals have been gaslighted, as if the experiences underlying their demands are figments of overly active imaginations.
Uma Kumar-Montei, an undergraduate double-majoring in neuroscience and political science at Tulane University in New Orleans, told Truthout that students mobilized shortly after classes began in late August to protest police brutality and demand that the $9 million currently spent on campus security be redirected to the low-income community surrounding the school.
“We marched to a park near campus. Everyone was masked and stayed socially distanced,” Kumar-Montei reports. “There were several hundred people and everything went smoothly. Then, eight days after the protest, two students got an email from the Office of Student Life saying that the gathering has been a violation of Tulane’s social distancing protocols. It was ridiculous since the dorms are open and indoor classes with more than 50 people are meeting. The email to the two was also completely arbitrary and no one knows why they were targeted.”
Although the pair were not threatened with expulsion, the group that organized the protest — simply called The Movement — was told that future events involving more than 50 people would no longer be permitted. In addition, the administration demanded the names and phone numbers of all event participants, allegedly for contact tracing.
“It’s clear that they are using COVID-19 to crack down on campus organizing,” Kumar-Montei says. “Before the August protest, we evaluated the risks we should and should not be taking. We did not want to endanger anyone or prevent anyone from going to school.” The demands, she continues, were thoughtfully developed after months of discussion.
“Tulane police are the same as the NOLA police, with the same weapons and the same arrest powers,” Kumar-Montei says. “Since the fall semester began, the increase in patrols on and near campus have been hard to ignore. We have to wonder if this is happening because of COVID or if the uptick is because they saw us protesting and want to scare us.”
Organizers emphasize that they are taking COVID-19 protocols extremely seriously, but say that administrations are exploiting the virus’s threat to crack down on dissent.
“Using COVID-19 transmission risks to squash demonstration and campus free speech, while still demanding students return to group housing and packed classrooms, is dishonest,” says Jasmine Banks, Director of UnKoch My Campus, a national organization working to limit the impact of right-wing funders on curricula and campus life. “This is just the latest tactic to subvert accountability and governance at all costs.”
Ignoring Student Protest
On the campus of Rice University in Houston, Texas, students are sitting-in to demand the removal of a statue of William Marsh Rice, the school’s slave-owning founder. The action, started by student Shifa Abdul Rahman, has to date been ignored by the school administration. Instead, administrators have deferred to a Task Force on Slavery, Segregation, and Racial Injustice which is expected to issue recommendations in 2021.
“The administration is dragging its feet,” senior Aurora Kesler told Truthout. “The students want the Rice statue removed and a statue of Raymond L. Johnson, the first Black student admitted to Rice in 1964, erected in its place.” There is a huge amount of support for this, she continues, citing a petition that had garnered nearly 3,000 signatures by the end of September.
Rice students also want the administration to respond to a document, Tangible Ways to Improve the Black Experience as Demanded by Black Students, that was written by an ad hoc group over the summer. Among its demands: an increase in the number of Black students admitted to the college; transparent hiring and promotion criteria for Black employment and advancement; a more diverse curriculum; and the creation of a Black House as a safe space for Black students to meet.
The university’s lack of response has led to great frustration, Kesler says, something that the Rice Thresher, a student newspaper, has affirmed. “Students are protesting now and deserve acknowledgement now, not in a year when the [Task Force’s] research is released,” an editorial in the Thresher concluded.
But as frustrating as it is to be ignored, getting in the crosshairs of a college administration can be equally unsettling.
Yulia Gilichinskaya is a Ph.D. student in Film and Digital Media at the University of California-Santa Cruz. Last fall, she and other graduate teaching assistants withheld grades as part of a job action to demand an increase in their monthly stipend. “We received student conduct summonses for violating the Student Code of Conduct,” Gilichinskaya told Truthout. “Our position was that they could not use the Student Code of Conduct to punish workers. The administration treated us as if we were only students even though we were also workers. This retaliatory response motivated us to escalate our tactics and we were all fired. The sanctions came in waves; the first wave was in February and the last in May.”
Although 41 of 42 fired workers still connected to the university were eventually reinstated, Carlos H. Cruz was the sole student not to be rehired.
“The UC has levied several Student Conduct Codes against me and decided to give me a two-year suspension,” Cruz explains. “The suspension will push me out of the Ph.D. program I had been in, in history. It is the administration’s opinion that I was a ringleader and the cause of many of the disturbances that the university experienced. I am being singled out, I believe, and scapegoated, for a collective action. I feel that I am being criminalized for student activism
Cruz has challenged the sanction, most recently attending an early October hearing to contest claims that he occupied administrative offices without authorization; grabbed at a police officer in an effort to disarm him; obstructed a roadway; threatened the health and safety of university employees; and intimidated staff.
In a letter refuting the charges, Cruz says that he was simply exercising his First Amendment right to free speech during a labor dispute and was acting in concert with other teaching assistants and student activists. He and his fellow organizers remain disturbed by the university’s decision to focus on him, and him alone, as a campus dissident.
“Carlos is outspoken, but he was not the sole leader,” Gilichinskaya says. “In my mind, his targeting was racially motivated.”
Fighting Racism
And it is not only students who have received reprimands, as faculty, too, have been castigated for their activism. Shortly after September’s two-day #ScholarStrike, organized by professors Kevin Gannon and Anthea Butler, two strikers received notice that their participation violated the Faculty Codes of Conduct at their universities.
James M. Thomas, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Mississippi, and sociology professor Wendy Leo Moore of Texas A&M, were among the thousands of academics who participated in the event, meant to give faculty a chance to “step away from their regular duties and classes” and engage in teach-ins about racial justice, policing and racism.
Thomas told students in the three online classes he is teaching this semester that he would not be lecturing, holding office hours, or responding to emails during the strike. Apparently, state auditor Shad White got wind of this and charged Thomas with violating a law that prohibits public employees in Mississippi from taking part in work stoppages or strikes.
Likewise, Wendy Leo Moore was told that she, too, had broken a state law against strikes by public workers.
Although Moore did not respond to Truthout’s interview request, Thomas says that he has not been suspended. What’s more, he has not received word from the university about what disciplinary action it intends to pursue. “You can call it a bit of a holding pattern,” he reports. “We have codified processes for certain kinds of misconduct — academic or fiscal — but none of my actions fit these definitions of misconduct so I am not exactly sure what they might accuse me of, outside of what’s in the Faculty Handbook.”
A long-time anti-racist activist, Thomas says that he participated in #ScholarStrike as a way to draw increased attention to “the continued pervasiveness of racism within the criminal justice system, including police violence toward Black people and other communities of color.”
And while he is heartened by the support he and Moore have received — nearly 900 academics from all over the US have signed a letter demanding that University of Mississippi and Texas A&M “disavow the threats and intimidation being levied against these two professors” — he nonetheless finds it disturbing that institutions that purport to support academic freedom and equal opportunity are taking this stance.
Perhaps their institutional temerity stems, in part, from a fear of losing federal funding since Trump has told universities that their tax-exempt status might be rescinded if they persist in “indoctrination, not education.” Thanks to an influx of dollars from conservative donors, groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; The National Association of Scholars; The National Bureau of Economic Research; and the Foundation for Excellence in Education have spent the last four years lamenting what they call “brute intimidation” of Trump supporters on campus, an indignity they see as weakening the body politic and loosening the grip of capitalism on the American psyche. Indeed, as colleges grapple with COVID, reduced enrollments, and budgetary shortfalls, it is disappointing, but not surprising, that they’re pushing back against the demands of their students and faculty.
Truthout attempted to reach administrators at Rice, Tulane, UN-Santa Cruz, the University of Mississippi and Texas A&M. They did not respond.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-11--Trump’s Tax Returns Reflect Undue Privileges Given to Real Estate in Tax Code

Janine Jackson : “ Donald Trump ’ s Tax Returns Have Many Wondering What They ’ re Doing Wrong , ” ran one cheeky headline , based on long-awaited reporting from The New York Times .
The implication is that tax avoidance , if you can get away with it , is clever , and presumably you can still use the other side of your mouth to complain about public resources being underfunded .
Corporate media don ’ t really believe that people are completely confuzzled about why they can ’ t get away with the same financial shenanigans as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the “ news you can ( actually ) use “ angle ?
As infuriating as it is to hear that while living a very wealthy lifestyle , Donald Trump paid just $ 750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017 , and none at all in ten of the previous 15 years , or that he wrote off $ 70,000 for his hair , well , as infuriating as that is , if media leave the story at Trump being “ sketchy , ” we will have learned—and , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions and avenues of inquiry could make more lasting , forward-looking use of this latest illustration of a sort of open secret of a system that provides one set of rules for the wealthy and another for the hoi polloi , and that allows for the draining of public coffers in the face of increasing public need ?
Steve Wamhoff is director of federal tax policy at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy .
He joins us now by phone from Washington , DC .
Welcome to CounterSpin , Steve Wamhoff .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by suggesting in general terms : How much of this is lamentable but legal—and we can talk about what to do about that—and how much of it is stuff that , if you weren ’ t the president , you might actually be in some kind of trouble for ?
Or do we even know ?
That ’ s a good question .
And it ’ s impossible to know for sure exactly what ’ s happening .
But it ’ s clear that one of two things is going on : Either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law , and the law is really screwed up and needs to be changed , or Trump is breaking the law , and that shows that our enforcement of the law is deeply problematic .
And that ’ s a result of Congress defunding the IRS , gutting tax enforcement , and making it impossible for tax enforcement to keep up with people like Donald Trump .
So one of those things is happening ; quite possibly , both of those things are happening .
You know , Donald Trump is using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s using a lot of special breaks and loopholes to avoid taxes .
That is a thing that wealthy businesspeople often do .
But Donald Trump nonetheless is in a league of his own .
He really is extremely aggressive , he really pushes the tax avoidance tactics to the very limit , and quite possibly beyond the limit , of what the law allows .
Let me just draw you out a bit on that .
Folks are getting a little hung up on “ He lost money , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not the success that he says he is.
” But the use of losses to avoid tax is evidently his thing , and not his alone .
I wonder if you could give us a little bit of a primer on how that works , on paper and then in reality .
Right .
So let ’ s be clear about one thing : Donald Trump is a terrible businessperson .
He does have a lot of real losses .
That ’ s just true , right ?
But at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very wealthy person .
He clearly has a lot of income .
You know , when you see someone who lives like a billionaire for decades , and still gets away with not paying taxes in most years , you know that there ’ s a problem with the system , right ?
Even if it is the case that he has a lot of ridiculous business investments that are complete failures .
And he does have a lot of losses .
Now , it is the case that our tax rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that recognizes when a businessperson has a loss .
I mean , the income tax is a tax on income .
So if your business has losses , and is not generating income , then we ’ re not going to tax you on business income .
So there are some sort of rules we have to have in place to recognize that people can deduct losses .
But those rules sometimes are overly generous to businesspeople who can manipulate the system .
And there are some particular types of rules that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors .
So , for example , the big real estate investors have some special rules that make it easier for them to use losses more quickly and more easily than other types of business investors .
And we know that ’ s a thing he ’ s used in the past .
In the ’ 90s , he had enormous losses from some of his real estate ventures .
The stuff that he ’ s doing now may be a little bit different ; now he ’ s involved in all these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name on steaks or something .
He ’ s in a lot of different lines of business .
But nonetheless , it ’ s true that what we see is a person who is clearly wealthy , has income ; he has all kinds of income from licensing schemes and from The Apprentice and whatnot , but he ’ s able to manipulate these rules and manipulate the losses from his other businesses to wipe out any tax liability that he would normally have .
And the real estate piece of that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you just wrote about the 2017 tax bill , with regard to using that “ losses to offset gains ” thing , and there was a chance , there was an opportunity to address that , and it was missed ?
Yeah , so there are all sorts of special breaks and loopholes for different types of investors , including real estate investors , that Republicans who were drafting the 2017 tax law decided not to touch .
I mean , they could have used the opportunity to do a true tax reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system a lot simpler , they could have removed all kinds of loopholes and special breaks , but they did not do that .
The law overall was a big giveaway to wealthy individuals and corporations .
There were a few provisions in there that did raise some revenue by limiting some of the shenanigans that wealthy people can do to avoid taxes , and there were some limits on how losses could be used .
Those limits , however , were suspended recently , in March , when Congress passed the CARES @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recession .
The CARES Act , as it was negotiated , at some point , there are some provisions inserted into that law that waived these limits on losses .
When you talk to people , it ’ s not exactly clear whose idea that was ; was it someone in the White House who said , “ Hey , let ’ s put the thing in the bill that no one ’ s paying attention to that will remove these limits on losses ?
” It ’ s unclear exactly .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could help someone like Donald Trump , who wants to use his losses to offset his other income , so that he can tell the IRS that he doesn ’ t have any income , and he shouldn ’ t pay taxes .
I mean , we don ’ t have to choose between the problem being Trump , or the problem being the system he exploits ; we could go for both of those , you know .
Let me just ask you , concretely , are there loopholes that we— “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , could close tomorrow ?
It ’ s not like everything ’ s so murky , and we don ’ t really know where people are causing problems .
There are things that folks could see that could be changed .
Yeah , yeah .
So I can give you an example , right .
In 1995 , Trump reported a loss of over $ 900 million .
Afterwards , he was able to use that for many years to offset any income that he had from other sources , and he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and avoid paying taxes .
So Trump , in 1995 , reported this more than $ 900 million of losses .
It ’ s very unlikely that Trump actually invested $ 900 million of his own income , right ?
He had losses on investments that he made with other people ’ s money .
And there ’ s a general rule in the tax code that you ’ re not going to be able to deduct the losses unless you actually put your own money into an investment .
But there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s real estate , and Trump was able to exploit that .
And that ’ s the sort of thing where you look at that and say , “ Well , why should we provide a special break for these big real estate investors , like the Trumps and the Kushners ?
” That ’ s effectively providing a subsidy through the tax code for someone , and of all the things we could subsidize , why would we subsidize that ?
It doesn ’ t make any sense .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we could repeal .
Let me bring you back to something you touched on earlier , in terms of systemic issues .
You know , Willie Sutton said he robbed banks “ because that ’ s where the money is.
” And I understand that the top 1 % are responsible for the vast majority of unpaid taxes .
But the IRS audits the super-rich less than they do working class or low-income people because , and I ’ ll just paraphrase their position , “ It ’ s really hard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t allow enforcement , if we don ’ t fund enforcement , then all this talk about rules is almost just deflection .
Exactly .
There ’ s two parts of this : You have to have rules that work .
And then you have to enforce the rules .
And this is just really , it ’ s mind-boggling , frankly , that Republicans in Congress have decided that , as part of their , I guess what you ’ d call “ antigovernment ethos ” … …they decided to cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can argue a lot about cutting different types of government spending , but cutting the IRS is particularly bizarre , because it means you get much less revenue to pay for the rest of the government , right ?
So the Congressional Budget Office recently put out a report about this , saying that if we just spent another $ 40 billion on IRS tax enforcement , that would actually end up raising another $ 103 billion that we would get by increasing our enforcement .
So by not doing it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from more than $ 60 billion by not providing that funding , right ?
And that was an example that the Congressional Budget Office gave .
And their report goes into the fact that , from 2010 through 2018 , Congress cut the IRS budget 20 % , basically , and that resulted in a staff reduction of 22 % .
And that resulted in a reduction of the tax enforcement staff by 30 % .
I mean , why would you cut the people who are collecting the revenue ?
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re not saving money by cutting the IRS , we ’ re losing a lot of money , but that ’ s what ’ s happening .
And over the years , one thing that ’ s happened is the rate of audits has fallen for people at all income groups , but it ’ s fallen more rapidly for the high-income folks .
It just doesn ’ t make sense .
Like you said , if you ’ re going to go where the money is , you would look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not what we ’ re doing , because the wealthiest people are , in fact , they are complicated ; when you ’ re someone like Donald Trump , you can do so many complicated schemes that you can use to avoid taxes ; it does require having very capable IRS enforcement staff on hand to be able to do that stuff .
But instead , what we see is a shift in IRS enforcement to do what ’ s easier .
What ’ s easier ?
Well , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim the earned income tax credit .
And the earned income tax credit has so many complicated rules around it that a lot of people just accidentally make a mistake , and they can get caught up by the IRS on that .
And that ’ s what the IRS seems to be shifting towards , focusing on that .
It seems completely unfair , completely nonsensical ; these IRS budgets , they ’ re not saving us money , they ’ re losing money , right ?
So none of it makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real-world consequences of that is , someone like Donald Trump is probably getting by with things that he should not get by with .
And we know for a fact that , for example , there ’ s this dispute over this enormous tax refund of more than $ 70 million that the IRS is still looking at , and has been since 2011 .
Why that is taking so long , who knows , but it could very well have something to do with the fact that the IRS is just deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to look at—while you look at what they don ’ t do—you have to look at what does happen , because it ’ s not just that , yeah , “ shrinking the government ” means , of course , shrinking its ability to collect taxes , but also , billionaires aren ’ t just exploiting these loopholes ; they have the political power to also create them .
So it ’ s not just laxity .
Right .
And Donald Trump is not a passive bystander when these tax rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him testifying before Congress , defending tax shelters , and saying that you should put tax shelters back in the tax code .
Donald Trump was all about that back in the ’ 90s .
And he and the rest of the real estate industry were successful in getting Congress to put some tax shelters back into the tax code .
So you can ’ t say that Donald Trump is just doing whatever the law allows ; Donald Trump was part of why this is in the law .
Right .
Reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who owns Trump ’ s debt , this $ 420 million in personal liability debt , and that is important to know , to put it mildly .
But it just reminds me of the vastly different role that debt plays in different lives .
In Donald Trump ’ s case , as we ’ ve been saying , it didn ’ t seem to prevent him from virtually anything , whereas we know that lives are derailed , and people are politically cowed , frankly , are silenced , because they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moral failing that should prevent you from moving forward in life .
And I guess I just really want to say , what we think of as fiscal policy is so much more than fiscal policy , both for the country and also for individuals ; it has myriad implications for people ’ s lives .
Yeah , it ’ s sort of like there are two sets of rules , one for really wealthy people like Donald Trump , and one for the rest of us .
And that comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it also includes the way we think about debt in almost moral terms ; there is sort of a different set of rules for someone like Donald Trump .
He ’ s being clever , but you didn ’ t pay off your student loan , so how should you expect to advance in life ?
It ’ s very frustrating .
And I guess , finally , it takes me back to the stories we tell about it , and that has a lot to do with media , with media and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side around April 15 , like it gets kind of personal and individual , and then the rest of the time , tax cuts and other things are political stories , or Beltway stories , and the connection , the direct connection to folks ’ lives , becomes less visible .
And I just wonder , finally , on this story , which is a huge story , and it ’ s just getting started , that ’ s just the first installment of the Times reporting , but are there things you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or not do , to kind of make this story and these questions legible for people , so that we can be more prepared to push for change ?
I do want to say , the New York Times has done a great job with this .
And it ’ s actually incredible .
Long-awaited , and Trump didn ’ t want it to happen ; we know that .
Right .
I think this is a story that we can tell a lot about the Trump administration .
We do have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we don ’ t want to just allow Trump to just destroy those , right ?
And we do have this norm now of presidents releasing their tax returns and presidential candidates releasing their tax returns .
And I think we should continue to expect that .
I don ’ t think Trump ’ s refusal to release a tax return should be considered the new norm .
I think that that kind of transparency is really important .
And I think that people will demand it , too .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learned , like we ’ ve had , after decades and decades of presidents and presidential candidates releasing their tax return , one guy refused to do so , and it became very apparent why he refused to do so , as soon as these revelations came out .
So my hope is that we ’ ll kind of get back to that norm immediately after he ’ s gone .
And we ’ ll stick with it .
We ’ ve been speaking with Steve Wamhoff , director of federal tax policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy , you can find their work online itep.org .
Steve Wamhoff , thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin .

President Donald Trump addresses a rally in support of law and order on the South Lawn of the White House on October 10, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Samuel Corum / Getty Images
Janine Jackson: “Donald Trump’s Tax Returns Have Many Wondering What They’re Doing Wrong,” ran one cheeky headline, based on long-awaited reporting from The New York Times. The implication is that tax avoidance, if you can get away with it, is clever, and presumably you can still use the other side of your mouth to complain about public resources being underfunded.
Corporate media don’t really believe that people are completely confuzzled about why they can’t get away with the same financial shenanigans as the rich and powerful. So where’s the “news you can (actually) use“ angle? As infuriating as it is to hear that while living a very wealthy lifestyle, Donald Trump paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017, and none at all in ten of the previous 15 years, or that he wrote off $70,000 for his hair, well, as infuriating as that is, if media leave the story at Trump being “sketchy,” we will have learned—and, more importantly, changed—nothing at all.
What questions and avenues of inquiry could make more lasting, forward-looking use of this latest illustration of a sort of open secret of a system that provides one set of rules for the wealthy and another for the hoi polloi, and that allows for the draining of public coffers in the face of increasing public need?
Steve Wamhoff is director of federal tax policy at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. He joins us now by phone from Washington, DC. Welcome to CounterSpin, Steve Wamhoff.
Steve Wamhoff: Thank you.
I wonder if you could perhaps start by suggesting in general terms: How much of this is lamentable but legal—and we can talk about what to do about that—and how much of it is stuff that, if you weren’t the president, you might actually be in some kind of trouble for? Or do we even know?
That’s a good question. And it’s impossible to know for sure exactly what’s happening. But it’s clear that one of two things is going on: Either what Trump is doing is allowed by the law, and the law is really screwed up and needs to be changed, or Trump is breaking the law, and that shows that our enforcement of the law is deeply problematic. And that’s a result of Congress defunding the IRS, gutting tax enforcement, and making it impossible for tax enforcement to keep up with people like Donald Trump.
So one of those things is happening; quite possibly, both of those things are happening. You know, Donald Trump is using a lot of tax breaks, and he’s using a lot of special breaks and loopholes to avoid taxes. That is a thing that wealthy businesspeople often do. But Donald Trump nonetheless is in a league of his own. He really is extremely aggressive, he really pushes the tax avoidance tactics to the very limit, and quite possibly beyond the limit, of what the law allows.
Let me just draw you out a bit on that. Folks are getting a little hung up on “He lost money, so that means he’s a failure, and not the success that he says he is.” But the use of losses to avoid tax is evidently his thing, and not his alone. I wonder if you could give us a little bit of a primer on how that works, on paper and then in reality.
Right. So let’s be clear about one thing: Donald Trump is a terrible businessperson. He does have a lot of real losses. That’s just true, right? But at the same time, Donald Trump is also a very wealthy person. He clearly has a lot of income. You know, when you see someone who lives like a billionaire for decades, and still gets away with not paying taxes in most years, you know that there’s a problem with the system, right? Even if it is the case that he has a lot of ridiculous business investments that are complete failures. And he does have a lot of losses.
Now, it is the case that our tax rules have to have some kind of rule that recognizes when a businessperson has a loss. I mean, the income tax is a tax on income. So if your business has losses, and is not generating income, then we’re not going to tax you on business income. So there are some sort of rules we have to have in place to recognize that people can deduct losses.
But those rules sometimes are overly generous to businesspeople who can manipulate the system. And there are some particular types of rules that are particularly generous to certain types of business investors.
So, for example, the big real estate investors have some special rules that make it easier for them to use losses more quickly and more easily than other types of business investors. And we know that’s a thing he’s used in the past. In the ’90s, he had enormous losses from some of his real estate ventures. The stuff that he’s doing now may be a little bit different; now he’s involved in all these licensing schemes, where he slaps his name on steaks or something.
Right.
He’s in a lot of different lines of business. But nonetheless, it’s true that what we see is a person who is clearly wealthy, has income; he has all kinds of income from licensing schemes and from The Apprentice and whatnot, but he’s able to manipulate these rules and manipulate the losses from his other businesses to wipe out any tax liability that he would normally have.
And the real estate piece of that is a particular piece, and I know you just wrote about the 2017 tax bill, with regard to using that “losses to offset gains” thing, and there was a chance, there was an opportunity to address that, and it was missed?
Yeah, so there are all sorts of special breaks and loopholes for different types of investors, including real estate investors, that Republicans who were drafting the 2017 tax law decided not to touch. I mean, they could have used the opportunity to do a true tax reform, they could have made the tax system a lot simpler, they could have removed all kinds of loopholes and special breaks, but they did not do that. The law overall was a big giveaway to wealthy individuals and corporations.
There were a few provisions in there that did raise some revenue by limiting some of the shenanigans that wealthy people can do to avoid taxes, and there were some limits on how losses could be used. Those limits, however, were suspended recently, in March, when Congress passed the CARES Act to respond to Covid-19 and the recession.
The CARES Act, as it was negotiated, at some point, there are some provisions inserted into that law that waived these limits on losses. When you talk to people, it’s not exactly clear whose idea that was; was it someone in the White House who said, “Hey, let’s put the thing in the bill that no one’s paying attention to that will remove these limits on losses?” It’s unclear exactly.
Yeah.
But it does appear to be something that could help someone like Donald Trump, who wants to use his losses to offset his other income, so that he can tell the IRS that he doesn’t have any income, and he shouldn’t pay taxes.
I mean, we don’t have to choose between the problem being Trump, or the problem being the system he exploits; we could go for both of those, you know.
Yeah, I think both.
Let me just ask you, concretely, are there loopholes that we—“we” being Congress—could close right now, could close tomorrow?
Yeah. I mean, there’s a lot.
It’s not like everything’s so murky, and we don’t really know where people are causing problems. There are things that folks could see that could be changed.
Yeah, yeah. So I can give you an example, right. In 1995, Trump reported a loss of over $900 million. Afterwards, he was able to use that for many years to offset any income that he had from other sources, and he could tell the IRS he had no income and avoid paying taxes. So Trump, in 1995, reported this more than $900 million of losses. It’s very unlikely that Trump actually invested $900 million of his own income, right?
He had losses on investments that he made with other people’s money. And there’s a general rule in the tax code that you’re not going to be able to deduct the losses unless you actually put your own money into an investment. But there’s a special exception for that when it’s real estate, and Trump was able to exploit that. And that’s the sort of thing where you look at that and say, “Well, why should we provide a special break for these big real estate investors, like the Trumps and the Kushners?” That’s effectively providing a subsidy through the tax code for someone, and of all the things we could subsidize, why would we subsidize that? It doesn’t make any sense.
Right.
And that’s an example of something that we could repeal.
Let me bring you back to something you touched on earlier, in terms of systemic issues. You know, Willie Sutton said he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is.” And I understand that the top 1% are responsible for the vast majority of unpaid taxes. But the IRS audits the super-rich less than they do working class or low-income people because, and I’ll just paraphrase their position, “It’s really hard, you guys!”
If we don’t allow enforcement, if we don’t fund enforcement, then all this talk about rules is almost just deflection.
Exactly. There’s two parts of this: You have to have rules that work. And then you have to enforce the rules. And this is just really, it’s mind-boggling, frankly, that Republicans in Congress have decided that, as part of their, I guess what you’d call “antigovernment ethos”…
Right.
…they decided to cut funding for the IRS. Now, you can argue a lot about cutting different types of government spending, but cutting the IRS is particularly bizarre, because it means you get much less revenue to pay for the rest of the government, right? So the Congressional Budget Office recently put out a report about this, saying that if we just spent another $40 billion on IRS tax enforcement, that would actually end up raising another $103 billion that we would get by increasing our enforcement. So by not doing it, it’s like Congress is walking away from more than $60 billion by not providing that funding, right? And that was an example that the Congressional Budget Office gave.
And their report goes into the fact that, from 2010 through 2018, Congress cut the IRS budget 20%, basically, and that resulted in a staff reduction of 22%. And that resulted in a reduction of the tax enforcement staff by 30%. I mean, why would you cut the people who are collecting the revenue? It doesn’t make any sense. We’re not saving money by cutting the IRS, we’re losing a lot of money, but that’s what’s happening.
And over the years, one thing that’s happened is the rate of audits has fallen for people at all income groups, but it’s fallen more rapidly for the high-income folks. It just doesn’t make sense. Like you said, if you’re going to go where the money is, you would look at the wealthiest people, but that’s not what we’re doing, because the wealthiest people are, in fact, they are complicated; when you’re someone like Donald Trump, you can do so many complicated schemes that you can use to avoid taxes; it does require having very capable IRS enforcement staff on hand to be able to do that stuff.
But instead, what we see is a shift in IRS enforcement to do what’s easier. What’s easier? Well, that’s going after the low-income people who claim the earned income tax credit. And the earned income tax credit has so many complicated rules around it that a lot of people just accidentally make a mistake, and they can get caught up by the IRS on that. And that’s what the IRS seems to be shifting towards, focusing on that.
It seems completely unfair, completely nonsensical; these IRS budgets, they’re not saving us money, they’re losing money, right? So none of it makes any sense.
But one of the real-world consequences of that is, someone like Donald Trump is probably getting by with things that he should not get by with. And we know for a fact that, for example, there’s this dispute over this enormous tax refund of more than $70 million that the IRS is still looking at, and has been since 2011. Why that is taking so long, who knows, but it could very well have something to do with the fact that the IRS is just deeply underfunded right now and understaffed.
And you have to look at—while you look at what they don’t do—you have to look at what does happen, because it’s not just that, yeah, “shrinking the government” means, of course, shrinking its ability to collect taxes, but also, billionaires aren’t just exploiting these loopholes; they have the political power to also create them. So it’s not just laxity.
Right. And Donald Trump is not a passive bystander when these tax rules are created. We have recordings of him testifying before Congress, defending tax shelters, and saying that you should put tax shelters back in the tax code. Donald Trump was all about that back in the ’90s. And he and the rest of the real estate industry were successful in getting Congress to put some tax shelters back into the tax code. So you can’t say that Donald Trump is just doing whatever the law allows; Donald Trump was part of why this is in the law.
Right. Reporters are following up on the question of who owns Trump’s debt, this $420 million in personal liability debt, and that is important to know, to put it mildly. But it just reminds me of the vastly different role that debt plays in different lives. In Donald Trump’s case, as we’ve been saying, it didn’t seem to prevent him from virtually anything, whereas we know that lives are derailed, and people are politically cowed, frankly, are silenced, because they have debt, and debt is presented as a moral failing that should prevent you from moving forward in life. And I guess I just really want to say, what we think of as fiscal policy is so much more than fiscal policy, both for the country and also for individuals; it has myriad implications for people’s lives.
Yeah, it’s sort of like there are two sets of rules, one for really wealthy people like Donald Trump, and one for the rest of us. And that comes to the tax rules, but I guess it also includes the way we think about debt in almost moral terms; there is sort of a different set of rules for someone like Donald Trump.
He’s being clever, but you didn’t pay off your student loan, so how should you expect to advance in life? It’s very frustrating.
And I guess, finally, it takes me back to the stories we tell about it, and that has a lot to do with media, with media and taxes. There’s a personal side around April 15, like it gets kind of personal and individual, and then the rest of the time, tax cuts and other things are political stories, or Beltway stories, and the connection, the direct connection to folks’ lives, becomes less visible.
And I just wonder, finally, on this story, which is a huge story, and it’s just getting started, that’s just the first installment of the Times reporting, but are there things you would be hoping that media would do, or not do, to kind of make this story and these questions legible for people, so that we can be more prepared to push for change?
I do want to say, the New York Times has done a great job with this. And it’s actually incredible.
Long-awaited, and Trump didn’t want it to happen; we know that.
Right. I think this is a story that we can tell a lot about the Trump administration. We do have some norms and traditions in this country, and we don’t want to just allow Trump to just destroy those, right? And we do have this norm now of presidents releasing their tax returns and presidential candidates releasing their tax returns. And I think we should continue to expect that. I don’t think Trump’s refusal to release a tax return should be considered the new norm. I think that that kind of transparency is really important.
And I think that people will demand it, too. I mean, given what we’ve learned, like we’ve had, after decades and decades of presidents and presidential candidates releasing their tax return, one guy refused to do so, and it became very apparent why he refused to do so, as soon as these revelations came out. So my hope is that we’ll kind of get back to that norm immediately after he’s gone. And we’ll stick with it.
We’ve been speaking with Steve Wamhoff, director of federal tax policy at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, you can find their work online itep.org. Steve Wamhoff, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
Thank you.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-11--Will Trump’s Call for Poll-Watchers Bring Paramilitaries to the Voting Booth?

Following President Donald Trump ’ s refusal last month to denounce white supremacists along with his longstanding pattern of undermining democratic norms — and in the wake of the FBI ’ s interception of a plot by right-wing domestic terrorists to kidnap Michigan ’ s Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow the state government — fears are mounting about the danger posed by far-right paramilitary groups heeding Trump ’ s call to “ go into the polls and watch very carefully.
” Two weeks after Donald Trump Jr. took to social media in an attempt to recruit an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and with early voting already underway , Republicans this week have begun dispatching thousands of volunteers to in-person voting locations and mail-in ballot drop boxes , part of a desperate “ effort to find evidence to back up Trump ’ s unsubstantiated complaints about widespread voter fraud , ” Reuters reported Thursday .
According to more than 20 officials involved in the effort , “ the mission… is to capture photos and videos Republicans can use to support so-far unfounded claims that mail voting is riddled with chicanery , and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the results of… the contest between Republican incumbent Trump and his Democratic opponent Joe Biden.
” But critics of the Trump campaign ’ s operation — which revolves around baseless presumptions of fraudulent electoral activity committed by supporters of Democratic candidates — argued that the president ’ s “ call for his supporters to serve as self-appointed ” poll-watchers “ sounded more like an incitement to voter intimidation and violence than an endorsement of the role election observers play in protecting democratic norms.
” Given the White House ’ s alarming normalization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights experts , civic officials , and citizens are increasingly concerned about the negative consequences that could ensue if tensions escalate and the president ’ s most militant supporters — white nationalist gangs , so-called “ patriots ” donning Confederate and Nazi regalia , and other heavily armed pro-Trump factions — follow his authoritarian cues .
Steven Gardiner , a scholar at the progressive think tank Political Research Associates , told The Guardian on Friday that “ the militias will absolutely seize on ” Trump ’ s comments .
“ The possibility of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at polling places is very troubling , ” Gardiner added .
When Devin Burghart — director of the anti-hate organization the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights — heard Trump endorse voter intimidation at last month ’ s debate , his “ first thought was , ‘ Here we go . '
” “ This is the stuff of our worst nightmares , ” Burghart said .
As Common Dreams reported on Thursday amid the revelation that 13 suspects had been arrested on kidnapping and terrorism charges after law enforcement officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan State Capitol and hold Gov .
Whitmer hostage , many observers have made connections between Trump ’ s demagogic rhetoric and his followers ’ violent actions .
“ I wonder where they got their motivation from , ” Rep. Rashida Tlaib ( D-Mich. ) noted sarcastically on social media , referring to an incendiary message Trump shared in April — during the height of anti-lockdown protests in the state — to “ Liberate Michigan !
” “ This is a pattern : Trump paints a target .
An attack or plot follows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correspondent Greg Miller .
Gardiner told The Guardian that “ the relationship between the militias and the current administration is call and response.
” “ It ’ s not always clear who ’ s leading the chant , ” he added .
“ Sometimes it ’ s coming from the militias , sometimes it ’ s coming from the president.
” Another worrisome development is that gun sales nearly doubled between summer 2019 and 2020 , meaning that the U.S. is further arming itself with “ deadly weaponry [ that ] is increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borne by self-styled private militias , and culminating in violent clashes that have caused bloodshed in several U.S. cities , ” as The Guardian explained .
The New York Times estimated last month that the number of active militia members hovers around 20,000 people in 300 groups , with military veterans constituting one-fourth of those .
But a new investigation by The Atlantic magazine into the Oath Keepers , one of the most prominent far-right paramilitary groups , revealed a list of nearly 25,000 current or former members , two-thirds of whom had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the number of Americans with ties to extremist factions is larger .
As Common Dreams reported last month , armed white supremacists pose the greatest domestic terrorism threat in the U.S. , according to the FBI , despite efforts by the Trump administration to downplay the risks associated with right-wing militias .
According to Gardiner ’ s research , many of the violent incidents committed by far-right vigilantes against anti-racism and anti-police violence protesters this summer were carried out by uncoordinated groups of individuals , with no known involvement of established militias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incidents [ this summer ] where small and entirely leaderless bands of extremists coalesced online and then proceeded to take their armed fantasies on to the streets of America , ” The Guardian reported .
Burghart ’ s team “ has been tracking the escalation of militia activity , ” particularly in key swing states including Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin , where “ groups have been detected discussing what they call ‘ voter integrity ’ efforts ” on Election Day .
“ We ’ re paying close attention , ” Burghart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ call to arms ” at the first presidential debate , he anticipates that “ we ’ ll see a lot more activity from here.
” Rachel Carroll Rivas , co-director of the Montana Human Rights Network , told The Guardian that online monitoring conducted by her organization has been “ picking up intensifying conversation among militia groups about the legitimacy of the November 3 ballot and of the integrity of mail-in voting.
” Rivas explained that “ militia groups such as the Montana branch of the United States Freedom Protectors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law enforcement on Election Day , ” and that “ the possibility of interventions by armed members of the group had to be taken seriously.
” “ They present themselves as protectors of property and law and order , and are now starting to talk about the election , ” Rivas said .
“ They may show up at polling places claiming to want to protect voting rights , but their impact will clearly be intimidatory.
” Instilling fear and harassing voters is Trump ’ s goal , according to voting rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scholar at the Wilson Center , wrote in The Atlantic that “ confrontations between unorganized , self-appointed poll watchers and individual voters are a recipe for trouble — and a threat to a fair election.
” Jankowicz stated that “ if voters encounter any group discouraging or preventing others from casting a ballot , they should immediately inform a poll worker and call a nonpartisan election-protection hotline ( 866-OUR-VOTE is one example ) .
” “ Election officials across the country should know they have the right to eject poll watchers for disruptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police if unrest develops outside the station , ” Jankowicz said .
“ And police themselves should be reminded that their job is to protect people ’ s ability to vote , no matter their personal political preferences.
” Rivas stressed that the threat of voter intimidation “ really is top down.
” Far-right paramilitary groups “ are repeating word for word what they hear from President Trump , ” she said .

Some researchers see a worrying trend of armed militias responding to Trump’s calls for violence and intimidation.
Following President Donald Trump’s refusal last month to denounce white supremacists along with his longstanding pattern of undermining democratic norms — and in the wake of the FBI’s interception of a plot by right-wing domestic terrorists to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow the state government — fears are mounting about the danger posed by far-right paramilitary groups heeding Trump’s call to “go into the polls and watch very carefully.”
Two weeks after Donald Trump Jr. took to social media in an attempt to recruit an “army for Trump’s election security,” and with early voting already underway, Republicans this week have begun dispatching thousands of volunteers to in-person voting locations and mail-in ballot drop boxes, part of a desperate “effort to find evidence to back up Trump’s unsubstantiated complaints about widespread voter fraud,” Reuters reported Thursday.
According to more than 20 officials involved in the effort, “the mission… is to capture photos and videos Republicans can use to support so-far unfounded claims that mail voting is riddled with chicanery, and to help their case if legal disputes erupt over the results of… the contest between Republican incumbent Trump and his Democratic opponent Joe Biden.”
But critics of the Trump campaign’s operation — which revolves around baseless presumptions of fraudulent electoral activity committed by supporters of Democratic candidates — argued that the president’s “call for his supporters to serve as self-appointed” poll-watchers “sounded more like an incitement to voter intimidation and violence than an endorsement of the role election observers play in protecting democratic norms.”
Given the White House’s alarming normalization of violence against political foes, voting rights experts, civic officials, and citizens are increasingly concerned about the negative consequences that could ensue if tensions escalate and the president’s most militant supporters — white nationalist gangs, so-called “patriots” donning Confederate and Nazi regalia, and other heavily armed pro-Trump factions — follow his authoritarian cues.
Steven Gardiner, a scholar at the progressive think tank Political Research Associates, told The Guardian on Friday that “the militias will absolutely seize on” Trump’s comments.
“The possibility of armed factions with military-style rifles showing up at polling places is very troubling,” Gardiner added.
When Devin Burghart — director of the anti-hate organization the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights — heard Trump endorse voter intimidation at last month’s debate, his “first thought was, ‘Here we go.'”
“This is the stuff of our worst nightmares,” Burghart said.
As Common Dreams reported on Thursday amid the revelation that 13 suspects had been arrested on kidnapping and terrorism charges after law enforcement officials foiled a right-wing plot to attack the Michigan State Capitol and hold Gov. Whitmer hostage, many observers have made connections between Trump’s demagogic rhetoric and his followers’ violent actions.
“I wonder where they got their motivation from,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) noted sarcastically on social media, referring to an incendiary message Trump shared in April — during the height of anti-lockdown protests in the state — to “Liberate Michigan!”
I wonder where they got their motivation from. https://t.co/Sqw8k80SNY pic.twitter.com/mhdSMElz5F — Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) October 8, 2020
“This is a pattern: Trump paints a target. An attack or plot follows,” tweeted Washington Post national security correspondent Greg Miller.
Gardiner told The Guardian that “the relationship between the militias and the current administration is call and response.”
“It’s not always clear who’s leading the chant,” he added. “Sometimes it’s coming from the militias, sometimes it’s coming from the president.”
Another worrisome development is that gun sales nearly doubled between summer 2019 and 2020, meaning that the U.S. is further arming itself with “deadly weaponry [that] is increasingly finding its way onto the streets, borne by self-styled private militias, and culminating in violent clashes that have caused bloodshed in several U.S. cities,” as The Guardian explained.
The New York Times estimated last month that the number of active militia members hovers around 20,000 people in 300 groups, with military veterans constituting one-fourth of those. But a new investigation by The Atlantic magazine into the Oath Keepers, one of the most prominent far-right paramilitary groups, revealed a list of nearly 25,000 current or former members, two-thirds of whom had military or law enforcement backgrounds, suggesting that the number of Americans with ties to extremist factions is larger.
As Common Dreams reported last month, armed white supremacists pose the greatest domestic terrorism threat in the U.S., according to the FBI, despite efforts by the Trump administration to downplay the risks associated with right-wing militias.
According to Gardiner’s research, many of the violent incidents committed by far-right vigilantes against anti-racism and anti-police violence protesters this summer were carried out by uncoordinated groups of individuals, with no known involvement of established militias.
“There have been almost 240 incidents [this summer] where small and entirely leaderless bands of extremists coalesced online and then proceeded to take their armed fantasies on to the streets of America,” The Guardian reported.
Burghart’s team “has been tracking the escalation of militia activity,” particularly in key swing states including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where “groups have been detected discussing what they call ‘voter integrity’ efforts” on Election Day.
“We’re paying close attention,” Burghart said. As a result of Trump’s “call to arms” at the first presidential debate, he anticipates that “we’ll see a lot more activity from here.”
Rachel Carroll Rivas, co-director of the Montana Human Rights Network, told The Guardian that online monitoring conducted by her organization has been “picking up intensifying conversation among militia groups about the legitimacy of the November 3 ballot and of the integrity of mail-in voting.”
Rivas explained that “militia groups such as the Montana branch of the United States Freedom Protectors were positioning themselves to be vigilante outriders of law enforcement on Election Day,” and that “the possibility of interventions by armed members of the group had to be taken seriously.”
“They present themselves as protectors of property and law and order, and are now starting to talk about the election,” Rivas said. “They may show up at polling places claiming to want to protect voting rights, but their impact will clearly be intimidatory.”
Instilling fear and harassing voters is Trump’s goal, according to voting rights advocates. Nina Jankowicz, a political scholar at the Wilson Center, wrote in The Atlantic that “confrontations between unorganized, self-appointed poll watchers and individual voters are a recipe for trouble — and a threat to a fair election.”
Jankowicz stated that “if voters encounter any group discouraging or preventing others from casting a ballot, they should immediately inform a poll worker and call a nonpartisan election-protection hotline (866-OUR-VOTE is one example).”
“Election officials across the country should know they have the right to eject poll watchers for disruptions and intimidation, and can call the police if unrest develops outside the station,” Jankowicz said. “And police themselves should be reminded that their job is to protect people’s ability to vote, no matter their personal political preferences.”
Rivas stressed that the threat of voter intimidation “really is top down.” Far-right paramilitary groups “are repeating word for word what they hear from President Trump,” she said.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.