Grinch Trump

THE ABSURD TIMES

The baseness of Trump's base is simply too low to fathom.

This new "Tax Reform" is being sold as a wonderful "Christmas Present for the Common Man," (or words less eloquent than that).

His supporters will believe it because he uses the word "Christmas" in it, conjuring up all sorts of religious acrimony that had passed for a while.  Now it resurfaces, along with his retweeting of neo-nazi anti-Semitic (just the Semites are Moslem, that's all) propaganda. 

The facts are more onerous: if you earn $75,000 per year or less, this bill will cost you.  If you earn less than $30, it will cost you even more.  If you make over a million, it is bound to reduce your taxes.  There is more to it than that, but that is a good start in understanding the Christian spirit of Trump.  [Christianity will survive this defilement just as all prophets have survived the distortion of their messages, but the damage in the meantime will be costly to you.]  If you get a tuition waiver in college, that will now be taxable income.  It could cost greatly these days with the cost of tuition, but it is an effective way to reduce the educational level of the populace and thus help the Republican Party in the future.

Republicans are rapidly pushing forward with their efforts to pass President Donald Trump's tax plan, which would overhaul the tax code in order to shower billions of dollars in tax cuts upon the richest Americans, including Trump's own family. On Tuesday, the Senate Budget Committee passed the Senate version of the plan, with all Republicans on the panel voting for it and all Democrats voting against. Protesters disrupted the committee hearing Tuesday with chants of "Kill the bill, don't kill us." The plan will now go to the full Senate for a vote as early as Thursday. The Senate bill slashes the corporate tax rate and gives further tax cuts to wealthy business owners. It would also repeal a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, the requirement that most Americans have health insurance. Experts say revoking this provision, known as the individual mandate, would cause the cost of health insurance to skyrocket. We speak with Heather McGhee, president of Demos and Demos Action.

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, on to the tax bill.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Republicans are rapidly pushing forward with their efforts to pass President Trump's tax plan, which would overhaul the code in order to shower billions of dollars in tax cuts upon the richest Americans, including President Trump's own family. On Tuesday the Senate Budget Committee passed a Senate version of the plan with all Republicans on the panel voting for it, and all Democrats voting against.

Protesters disrupted the committee hearing Tuesday with chants of "Kill the bill, don't kill us." Several were arrested. The plan will now go to the full Senate for a vote as early as Thursday. The Senate bill slashes the corporate tax rate and gives further tax cuts to wealthy business owners. It would also repeal a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, the requirement that most Americans have health insurance. Experts say recalling this provision, known as the individual mandate, would cause the cost of health insurance to skyrocket.

The vote came after President Trump met with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill. He later told reporters he thinks the Republican tax bill will be, quote, "very popular."

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We are in a very good position in terms of the meeting we just had over at the Capitol with the Republican senators. It was outstanding. I think we have tremendous support. I was just informed by Rich that we had a unanimous vote from the Republican side, at least. We had a unanimous vote on the tax bill. And it goes now the next step, and I think we are going to get it passed. I think it's going to pass and it's going to be very popular. It's going to have lots of adjustments before it ends. But the end result would be a very, very massive—the largest in the history of our country—tax cut.

AMY GOODMAN: Democrats have had nearly no say in crafting the tax plan. House and Senate Majority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer boycotted a meeting on Tuesday with Trump and Republican lawmakers after he appeared to refuse to negotiate on key issues like spending, health care and immigration. Trump then held a news conference between two empty chairs with signs for Pelosi and Schumer on them.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think they want tax increases and we want major tax decreases. So they decided not to show up. They have been all talk and they've been no action. And now it is even worse. Now it is not even talk. So they're not showing up for the meeting.

AMY GOODMAN: The image of President Trump surrounded by two empty chairs has appeared to backfire against him and has become a meme. Meanwhile, the House Democratic Leader Pelosi responded on Twitter saying, "@realDonaldTrump now knows that his verbal abuse will no longer be tolerated. His empty chair photo opp showed he's more interested in stunts than in addressing the needs of the American people. Poor Ryan and McConnell relegated to props. Sad!"

This comes as a House version of the tax bill passed earlier this month would cut the corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 20 percent. As the year winds down with no legislative achievements since Trump became president, Republicans say they are determined to pass tax reform by the end of the year.

Well, for more, we are joined by Heather McGhee, President of Demos and Demos Action. Heather, wow, a lot has happened in these last 24 hours. Talk about this tax bill that was passed and what the House is also considering.

HEATHER MCGHEE: This tax bill is an outrage. At a time of record economic inequality, when half of American families couldn't pay a $400 bill without going into debt or selling something, this bill would give hundreds of billions of dollars to the wealthiest one percent. It is a sop, not actually to the Republican base, because this is an enormously unpopular bill. If there's one silver lining, it's that the American people are not falling for the Republican tax scam. They understand that it's just going to the wealthy and big corporations that they think are already running away with the store.

And so, you've got a bill that is historically unpopular. The only bill in polling history that has been more unpopular has actually been the Republican repeal of Obamacare. And yet they on the Hill think that this is a political imperative. Why is that? And they have been willing to say it—because their donors, some of the wealthiest people in this country, are saying, "We will turn off the spigot if you do not pass this tax cut for me, my businesses and my heirs."

It is disgusting. It's immoral. It's going to make it harder for working-class and middle-class families to buy a house, to pay down student debt and go to college. And the CBOrecently said that it's going to raise taxes. This massive Trump tax cut is going to cut his taxes and those of his children, but it's going to raise taxes on people making under $30,000 almost immediately.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And even those folks in the middle class who supposedly will get tax cuts, those tax cuts, many of them will expire after 10 years whereas those tax cuts for the wealthy and for the corporations are permanent tax cuts?

HEATHER MCGHEE: That's right. That's exactly right, Juan. So within 10 years, families making under $75,000 a year will definitely see a tax increase. We're also very aware people who live in states where their state and local governments actually invest in their communities and have higher property and income taxes, mostly blue states, are going to not be able to deduct as much of that tax that they pay, and so it is going to put pressure on state and local governments to cut taxes as well.

We are seeing a hollowing out of our national treasure. We are seeing nearly $2 trillion added to the deficit and the debt. And honestly, the big concern for us on that is think about all of the missed opportunities, the way that we could be investing in our infrastructure, to stop poisoning our families. The way we could be transitioning to a clean energy economy, creating free college, affordable childcare and healthcare. We could really do so much with these funds, and instead, we are giving it to corporations and people who have never been richer and never been more profitable.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's go to Senator Bernie Sanders at a hearing talking about the tax bill's impact on the federal budget.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: How many hours have I sat here and have you sat there and we have seen all of the charts and all of the discussions about how terrible the deficit is, what it means leaving this burden to our kids and our grandchildren. We heard all of that rhetoric year after year, and now we have a bill that raises the deficit by $1.4 trillion.

AMY GOODMAN: So $1.4 trillion, it raises the deficit. And then talk about the individual mandate and affordable healthcare—what this is going to mean for that?

HEATHER MCGHEE: Well, those of us who follow this closely never believed the Republican sort of chicken hawking about the deficit. We knew it was always about an ideological desire to shrink government so that they could cut taxes. And so what they're doing is cutting taxes and shrinking government, and it doesn't matter.

The ruse they are using is saying that these tax cuts will grow the economy and therefore somehow pay for themselves. Forty-one out of 42 economists of all ideological stripes surveyed by the University of Chicago said that this massive tax cut would lead to no substantial economic growth. And CEOs are agreeing. They're saying, "If you give us a windfall without there being any change in the underlying dynamics, without more customers coming into our shops—because working and middle-class people just don't have enough money to be fueling this consumer economy—we're just going to give that money to our investors and our shareholders."

So it is going to be yet another aspect of the windfall. It's not going to create middle-class good jobs. Workers just don't have the bargaining power to make that kind of a windfall to corporations translate into their pockets.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I want to ask you about two other aspects of this tax reform. One is where the Senate version of the bill is actually worse in some ways than the House, because there were some Republican senators who were concerned about the so-called pass-throughs. If you could talk about that? These LLCs that are basically used by lawyers and real estate people, and that they want a better cut for those who use LLCs or limited liability companies. Can you talk about that?

HEATHER MCGHEE: That's right. So law firms, even hedge funds, lots of wealthy people who have business income that they get from various endeavors—

AMY GOODMAN: Trump has like 500 of them.

HEATHER MCGHEE: The entire Trump organization, the vast majority of it itself, is a pass-through. So that money comes in not into a separate business, but just comes straight through as personal income, and today is taxed at personal income. And because the vast majority of these people, these business owners, are in the one percent, they have the highest marginal tax rate. This would change it so that it would be that lower corporate tax rate that they are slashing. And so it would be a huge windfall to a lot of the people who constitute the Republican political donor base.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what has happened to—a pet beaver of mine has been what I call the amnesty for tax dodging corporations.

HEATHER MCGHEE: Oh yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: This repatriation of money from overseas where, basically, the plan that both many Democrats as well as Republicans supported was to retroactively lower the taxes that they haven't already paid so they can repatriate them to the United States. What has happened to that in the bill?

HEATHER MCGHEE: You put it exactly as it is. And then they're going to have a zero percent tax rate on foreign profits. So a lot of analysts are saying this will encourage even more companies to create operations overseas. So it would actually potentially make the job situation that we have even worse.

AMY GOODMAN: And the individual mandate?

HEATHER MCGHEE: Republicans are obsessed with undoing President Obama's legacy. So they want to go back at the incredibly unpopular attempt to repeal affordable healthcare in this country. So they want to get rid of the individual mandate. The effect of that will be to make health insurance premiums go up for everyone.

If you look at the different just bread and butter issues that American families are struggling with—student debt, being able to afford a home, childcare, healthcare—all of those things could go up considerably for working and middle-class families while rich families get even more money for just opening an envelope from their tax return.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you mentioned the effect on students.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

PARADISE PAPERS OR WHAT MONEY?

THE ABSURD TIMES

NATIONS ARE OBSOLETE

"Tax?  Tax what?  I'm broke!"

With all the nonsense about Russia interfering in our election, these Paradise Papers reveal what is really in control of the world.  We can play all we want about borders and immigrants and Parties, but it is all the banks these days.

Here is a discussion of it.  Again, it is just one more thing we always suspected, but just hadn't documented. 

This weekend, a slew of 13.4 million leaked documents revealed how the world's richest men stash away billions of dollars in wealth in offshore tax havens. The revelations, known as the Paradise Papers, implicate more than a dozen of President Trump's Cabinet members, advisers and major donors. The 13.4 million leaked documents also reveal how millions of pounds of the British queen's private estate were hidden in an offshore fund based in the Cayman Islands, and how the senior adviser to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau helped funnel millions of dollars to offshore tax havens. For more, we speak with Frederik Obermaier, co-author of the Paradise Papers. He is an investigative reporter at Germany's leading newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung. Obermaier also worked on a separate investigation, the Panama Papers, and is co-author of the book "Panama Papers: The Story of a Worldwide Revelation."

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We end today's show with a slew of shocking revelations about how the world's richest people stash away billions of dollars in wealth in offshore tax havens. The revelations, known as the Paradise Papers, implicate more than a dozen of President Trump's Cabinet members, advisers and major donors, among them Wilbur Ross, who's continued to conduct business with Vladimir Putin's son-in-law through a shipping company, even after Ross became Trump's commerce secretary. The shipping company, Navigator Holdings, is also linked to a Russian oligarch subject to U.S. sanctions.

The papers also show President Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was the director of a Bermuda-incorporated oil and gas company linked to ExxonMobil which ran a controversial scheme to export tens of millions of barrels of natural gas from the oil fields in western Yemen.

Trump's chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, served as president or vice president of 22 separate companies based in Bermuda between 2002 and 2006, while he was at Goldman Sachs. The registered addresses of all 22 Bermuda-based companies were 85 Broad Street in Manhattan, then the headquarters of Goldman Sachs.

Even the Trump administration's top banking watchdog, Randal Quarles, vice chair for supervision at the Federal Reserve, was the officer of two separate firms based in the Cayman Islands. The 13.4 million leaked files also implicate Trump's Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin; Jon Huntsman, Trump's new U.S. ambassador to Russia; and Carl Icahn, Trump's billionaire former adviser.

They also reveal how millions of pounds of the British queen's private estate were hidden in an offshore fund based in the Cayman Islands, and how the senior adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau helped funnel millions of dollars to offshore tax havens.

The documents also take aim at the world's biggest companies, showing how Nike and Apple avoid taxes and how Facebook and Twitter received hundreds of millions of dollars linked to the Russian state.

The files [were] obtained by reporters at the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitungand then shared with International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The files were then analyzed by more than 380 journalists from over 90 media organizations across 67 countries.

For more, we're joined by Frederik Obermaier, co-author of the Paradise Papers, investigative reporter at Germany's leading newspaper, also worked on the Panama Papers investigation and is co-author of the book Panama Papers: The Story of a Worldwide Revelation.

Well, we do not have much time, Frederik, but if you could just start off by explaining how these papers were released, and then talk about some of the most outstanding examples within it, who this is implicating?

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: Hello. We started the Paradise Papers investigation more than a year ago. And it was the results—the first results were published yesterday noon or noonish U.S. East Coast time. The Paradise Papers show actually how the super-richest and how corporates hide their money offshore. Sometimes it's illegal. Sometimes it's still legal, but I think it's still illegitimate, because hiding and avoiding taxes means that there's money going away, money that our countries need, our societies need, for example, to building universities, to build streets, to build schools. So, I think this is a global problem. It's a problem in the U.S., but also in the European Union. And I think there's, therefore, a global approach needed.

AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about some of the most stunning findings in this, what you were most shocked by?

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: I was really surprised of the huge extent of how people being very close to Donald Trump being involved in offshore dealings. I think the case from Wilbur Ross shocked me the most, because we all know that there was—he was already questioned in regards to how he disinvested, but, I mean, nobody was aware of his connection to Russia. And, I mean, he now claims that the company, Navigator Holdings, where he is still holding some interest, that he didn't know that they—that the company they did business with in Russia, a company called SIBUR, that there is—one stakeholder is or one shareholder is, for example, Vladimir Putin's son-in-law or the oligarch Timchenko. And I think I must admit that from a secretary of commerce, I would expect to at least know this, to research it. And I think it shows a huge conflict of interest that, in my opinion, should now be investigated.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, explain, because the commerce secretary, when questioned, said he was divesting from his holdings. So, what does the Paradise Papers show?

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: The Paradise Papers show that he indeed did disinvest from most of his companies, but that he kept—even after becoming secretary of commerce, that he kept, via a chain of offshore companies, interest in Navigator Holdings and that he didn't disinvest from that one. And given the current debate in the U.S. about Russia's influence in the U.S., I think it is very important to have a close look at what went on there and that not only media, but also authorities and investigators, should have a look on that one.

AMY GOODMAN: You also uncovered, for example, Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state; Steve Mnuchin. Explain what you found.

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: Well, in the case of Mr. Mnuchin, it is interesting that his former bank, the CIT Bank, that they help their customers to set up structures, when they, for example, bought airplanes, to set up structures to avoid taxes. And this is things we have seen in many cases, and we have already seen that millions of dollars of taxes are avoided through such structures. And given the fact that nearly every country of the world needs money, needs tax money, to—basically, to keep up the infrastructure, keep up universities and schools running, I think this is something the public should be well aware of, that in the Trump government, in the Trump administration, there are many people with offshore ties and that this is something they should have a close look to.

AMY GOODMAN: And very quickly, the companies, like Apple and others, what role the Paradise Papers exposes them playing?

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: The Paradise Papers show that those multinational companies are looking for—to find always a loophole in the global tax system. So, when one loophole is closed, they try to find another one. They try to keep their taxes as low as possible. And it is countries like the U.S. that basically miss the taxes. So, for example, if—when a company like Nike sets up a complicated structure in the tax haven of the Netherlands, this actually means that it is a huge amount of taxes that the U.S. state misses.

AMY GOODMAN: Frederik Obermaier, we're going to have to leave it there now, but we're going to do Part 2 and post it online at democracynow.org. He's co-author of the Paradise Papers. I'm Amy Goodman. Happy birthday, Andre Lewis!

In Part 2 of this conversation, Frederik, can you start off by explaining why it's called the Paradise Papers?

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: Well, actually, when we speak about tax havens, at least in Europe, we always speak about tax paradises. And as the Paradise Papers are not like the Panama Papers, focused on only one offshore provider, but on two offshore providers and the company registries of 19 tax havens, we thought that the title Paradise Papers would basically bring all these topics together, because the Paradise Papers shed light on around about a fifth of all global secrecy jurisdictions. So it is many of—we show how many tax paradises are in reality tax—a tax hell.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to a clip of the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, speaking during his confirmation hearing earlier this year.

WILBUR ROSS: I intend to be quite scrupulous about recusal in any topic where there's the slightest scintilla of doubt.

AMY GOODMAN: He'll go to recusal if there's the slightest scintilla of some kind of conflict of interest. Frederik Obermaier, what does the Paradise Papers show about him?

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: The Paradise Papers show that there is indeed a huge conflict of interest in the case of Wilbur Ross, because if you profit from basically business activities with a Russian company that is owned by individuals very close to Vladimir Putin, in my opinion, that's a huge conflict of interest. And that's something Wilbur Ross should have made public before becoming secretary. So, I think there are—

AMY GOODMAN: Explain—explain exactly what you mean.

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: —lots of questions open that he should answer now.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain exactly what you mean. I think you're referring to Vladimir Putin's son-in-law. Explain the business that Wilbur Ross has with him.

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: Well, Vladimir Putin's son-in-law, Kirill Shamalov, owns shares of a company called Sibur. That's a company that is dealing, for example, in gas. And they rented ships of Navigator Holdings. So, actually, Navigator Holdings made a fortune by doing business with Sibur. And Wilbur Ross owns, via—indirectly owns, via a chain of offshore companies, owns shares in Navigator Holdings. So this means he actually profits from doing business with Putin's son-in-law.

And given the situation that we currently do face in the U.S., that there's a debate about Russia's interference in the U.S. election and Russia's role in the U.S., this is something that, in my opinion, raises suspicions, and it should at least have been made public. In my opinion, Mr. Ross should have stated clearly that there is this interest he still kept in Navigator Holdings. And he should have been aware with which companies Navigator Holdings is doing business, because Sibur is not one among hundreds of customers of Navigator Holdings, it's one of the biggest customers. And, I mean, Mr. Ross, or at least his ministry, yesterday announced in a statement that he would not have been aware of the shareholders in Sibur. I, myself, ask the question—well, you should only have looked on their homepage. This is not hidden information. On the homepage of Sibur, you find the name of Kirill Shamalov.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who we also discussed for a moment in Part 1 of our conversation. During his confirmation hearing earlier this year, the former Goldman Sachs executive defended himself against accusations he used a tax haven in the Cayman Islands in order to avoid paying taxes.

STEVEN MNUCHIN: Let me just be clear again: I did not use the Cayman Island entity in any way to avoid taxes for myself. I paid U.S. taxes on all that income, OK? So, there was no benefit to me from the Cayman entity. As I said, the Cayman entity was set up to accommodate nonprofit and pension funds that want to invest through offshore in a certain number of offshore—

AMY GOODMAN: So, Frederik Obermaier, can you respond to what Mnuchin said, now that you know what you know from the Paradise Papers?

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: Well, in his case, if we look closely, we do see that the bank he worked for before, that they actively helped their customers to go offshore, meaning that they helped them to set up complex structures to avoid taxes, for example, to be paid when you buy an airplane. So, even if he did not personally benefit from it, the bank he worked for actively helped to set up such structures. And I think this is also something that should be public, that he should have addressed, because, I mean, helping to set up those structures means also to help people to not pay taxes, for example, in countries like the U.S.

AMY GOODMAN: Goldman Sachs, the address, 85 Broad Street, links to Trump's chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, who served as president or vice president of 22 companies based in Bermuda between 2002 and 2006, while he was at Goldman Sachs. The registered addresses of all 22 Bermuda-based companies were 86 Broad Street in Manhattan, then the headquarters of Goldman Sachs.

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: Well, it shows again that within the Trump administration there are many people and many individuals that did either do offshore business or helped others to do so. And given the fact that Mr. Trump tries to promote get corporations back to the U.S., back from secrecy jurisdictions, I think this shows—or at least I would question if everyone in his administration really supports this course. And in my opinion, it shows again that so many richest and powerful businessmen did offshore business activities. And this is something that needs to be investigated by the public, by journalists, because it's an important issue.

I personally do see a danger for democracy, if there is a small minority, a small elite, that can afford to go offshore and therefore avoid or evade taxes, but at the same time that the majority does have to pay taxes. And if they have the feeling there is the rich 1 percent that doesn't stick to the same rules as they have, this may help populist movements to grow even bigger than they are already now.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does the queen of England have to do with this story?

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: Well, the queen of England actually, I suppose without her knowing it, indirectly invested in offshore funds. So, when we and other colleagues approached her and her officials, they claimed that they would have not known where actually the investment went to. And as far as 'til now, we don't have any contradictory information that she would have really personally known where she's investing to. But it shows that if you do invest money, you should have a close look where you do invest, because many of the world—a big amount of the money invested worldwide is funded through secrecy jurisdictions. And this is, of course, something the public should know and the public should discuss.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, I know you have to go off to another interview, but I wanted to ask you about what happened last month in Malta. The investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated when a powerful bomb planted in her car exploded near her home in the Mediterranean island nation. She spent much of her time over the last two years reporting on revelations about Malta from the Panama Papers, that trove of more than 11 million leaked files that reveal how the rich and powerful in a number of countries used tax havens to hide their wealth. No claim of responsibility for the blast, although local media reported that Galizia filed a police report in early October to report on death threats. Can you talk about her assassination?

FREDERIK OBERMAIER: Well, Daphne Galizia was a brave journalist who stood up in Malta in the fight against corruption, fighting for more transparency. She was very outspoken, and she addressed a few issues many people in the government in Malta did not want to speak about. She was, I think, not an easy—like an easy reporter to deal with for Maltese—for the Maltese government and businessmen, because she always pointed her finger where it hurts. And it is a tragic loss that she was killed, but I personally do hope that other Maltese journalists now keep up the work and do investigate the stories she worked on before she was killed.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you for being with us, Frederik Obermaier, co-author of the Paradise Papers, investigative reporter at Germany's leading newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung.Obermaier also worked on the separate investigation, Panama Papers, and co-authored the book Panama Papers: The Story of a Worldwide Revelation. Thanks so much for being here.