The first and continuing casualty of Donald Trump's election

The truth.  That was the first casualty of the election of Donald J. Trump in November of 2016.  In point of fact, the truth was already under attack by both candidates during the general election, but no one has mounted a fiercer assault on the truth than Mr. Trump.

“The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration—and a very effective form of promotion.”

That is taken from Trump's book "The Art of the Deal" and it is a different way of disguising a lie than to call a false statement an "alternative fact."  Adolph Hitler wrote the following in "Mein Kampf" which was published in 1925.

"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels gave this concept a different spin:

"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

These quotes are not offered to compare Trump to Hitler or Goebbels in overall terms, but to point out that there is a consistency in their belief that lying to the people works.  Trump is proving the concept still works.

There are so many fact-checks done of anything he says, I won't bore you with a complete examination of his State of the Union speech.  But there are a few quotes that bear scrutiny; while also showing how both sides are spinning things to fit their narrative.

Trump - "Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs, including 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone. Tremendous number. After years and years of wage stagnation, we are finally seeing rising wages."

It is true that 2.37 million new jobs were created after the election, but he didn't take office the day after the election.  The actual number of jobs created since he was sworn in is 1.84 million and job growth slowed during his first 11 months by 12% over the previous 11 month period.  Did he tell an outright lie?  He misused a statistic to make himself look better, which he would label as truthful hyperbole.

Trump - "And something I am very proud of, African American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded. And Hispanic American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history."

They are.  But again, those rates had been declining steadily before he was elected, and the rate of decline has slowed since he took office.  You could restate his factoid in different words by saying "while I've been in office, the continuing growth of employment among African Americans and Hispanics has slowed significantly."  Which is the more truthful/accurate recitation?

Trump - “...we enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history.”

That's an outright lie he's been spewing forth for weeks now.  Multiple sources have made it clear that the Trump Tax Plan was not the biggest tax cut in history.  By either adjusting for inflation, or as a percentage of GDP, his tax cut is in the top ten but nowhere near the largest.

* * *

We can argue about whether a glass is half full or half empty.  We can accurately state that the glass is filled to exactly 50% of its capacity.  You can find a way to twist almost any statistic to fit your narrative.  But we've never had someone in the Oval Office who prevaricates so prodigiously. 

The fact that he believes himself doesn't make it true.

But the fact that he's able to convince such a large segment of our population that he's being honest is truly frightening.

The Ranting Teacher/City Councilperson

I write a lot more blogs in my mind than appear on the screen.  Yesterday I was tempted to write one about a Pico Rivera history/government teacher's recorded rant, but I did not.  Not because I didn't have something to say about his rant.  I decided to let my thoughts marinate in my mind because of my visceral reaction to what Gregory Salcido had said in his classroom.

24 hours have passed since I first listened to his words.  These words.

While my service ended nearly 30 years ago, I am no different from the men and women who are serving today.  They are all volunteers.  They all had other options, but they chose the military.  Not because it was their only choice.  And like me, they are not "dumb shits."  

According to the George Washington University Facts in the USA project, 82.8% of military officers hold an undergraduate degree or higher, compared to 29.9% of the general population.  93.6% of military enlisted personnel have a high school diploma or some college, compared to 59.5% of the general population.  Looks to me like military personnel are, on average, better educated than the rest of our nation's population.

Mr. Salcido posted a statement on his Facebook page when he learned about the controversy regarding the recorded rant:

"The Salcido 3 just got out of an excellent musical, 'The Band's Arrival'. I turned my phone back on to unexpectedly see a storm. I don't think it's wise for me to make any specific comments, but I want my friends, family, and students to know we are fine and we respect the rights of free expression for all individuals."

I'm going to call you out on that, Mr. Salcido.  You told one of your students the following in that rant of yours; referring to the student's Marine Corps shirt.

“Why would you wear something that you can’t freakin’ support? Don’t ever wear that again, don’t ever wear it here.”

Someone needs to educate this educator that when you support free expression for all individuals, that includes what they choose to support on their t-shirts; albeit when in a classroom, it has to comply with the school's dress code.  You have no right to tell a student not to wear a particular t-shirt in your classroom just because you don't like what it represents.

I'd also like to ask Mr. Salcido to please elaborate on how Russia got to Italy first during World War II, before the U. S. Army did.  The U.S. and other allied forces invaded Sicily in July of 1943.  When did Russia cross into Italian territory, Mr. Salcido?  Would you also please give a few examples of people who were killed by the falling bodies of other people who jumped from the World Trade Center, according to your rant?  Thanks so much.

I understand that a lot of teachers are against military recruiting on school property.  They are certainly within their rights to complain about that.  But the military is a viable career option.  Going back to data from Facts in the USA, a military officer with an undergraduate degree earns 88% more on average than a civilian with comparable education.

Speaking of college education, when I first started going to night classes as a community college, the Air Force paid 75% of the tuition.  That increased to 90% when I was promoted to the E-5 paygrade.  That's in addition to the education benefits available to military personnel after they complete their military service.  I have a client who graduated from a prestigious private university (FYI Joel, it wasn't that eternally damnable junior university) and his VA education benefits paid for all of it.  His future is very bright.

Should the school fire Mr. Salcido?  If this were his first offense, I would say no.  But according to the Daily Breeze, this isn't his first brush with authority based on his actions in the classroom.  He was placed on administrative leave and then suspended in 2010 for allegedly threatening a student.  In 2012 he was again placed on administrative leave for hitting a student.  He claimed to have smacked the kid without intent to do harm, to wake him up.  He was accused by the student of shaming the student over his weight and appearance.  I think they need to take a very close look at his classroom comportment and carefully consider his future with that school.

Should he resign from his city council post?  I suspect that if he doesn't, the voters will fix that problem in the next election.

The true state of the Union

On Jaunary 30, 2018, Donald J. Trump will deliver his very first State of the Union (SOTU) address to a joint session of the Congress.  People across the nation are going to boycott the address by refusing to watch it on television.  Considering that the SOTU address will be shown on ABC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC, PBS and Univision, Trump is probably planning to tout the ratings his address gets.  The boycott is an attempt to frustrate him.  To send the message that those of us who are "resisting" are not happy with how things are going.

So what is the real "state of our union."  Precarious.  That's the one-word description I feel is most appropriate.  What will the Moron-in-Chief say in his SOTU address?  That depends on whether we get "regular" Trump or "unleaded" Trump which is also known as teleprompter Trump.  As pointed out by Doyle McManus in a L.A. Times piece, when we are treated to teleprompter Trump he has a habit of stopping his recitation of the words written for him to utter, in order to remark "so true" as if he was reading those words for the first time.

He will take credit for a vast improvement in the nation's economy, which is an outright prevarication.  He has done little to improve the economy as the first four or five months of what happened after he was inaugurated had nothing to do with anything he did or said.  He will tout an unemployment rate that is at the lowest point since it hit 3.9% in September of 2000.

The problem with the low unemployment rate as a metric of our economy is that it does not include people who have given up on seeking work.  A more accurate metric is the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR).  As of December 2017, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a LFPR of 62.7%.  What does that number mean?  It is a measure of the population aged 16-64 who are able to work, who are working.  62.7% is the lowest rate since January of 1978.

He will tout tax reform.  He did push a bill through the Congress and cut tax rates.  The problem with what was done is that this tax reform plan gave much more in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, and it was paid for by borrowing rather than the spending cuts he bragged about imposing during his campaign.  Any fool can cut taxes by borrowing more money.  Estimates are that our national debt will increase by $1.5 trillion over the next decade to pay for these tax reductions.

According to the U.S. Treasury's website where you can buy government securities directly (www.treasurydirect.gov), in the fiscal year that ended on 9/30/2017, we spent $458.5 billion in interest expense on the national debt.  Because some of that interest expense is "paid" to the money that was "borrowed" from the Social Security "trust fund", that number is misleading.  The actual amount of money paid out from federal coffers to finance the national debt during FY2017 is closer to $266.8 billion.  Another way to look at this is that 6.7% of all federal outlays are expended on financing our nation's borrowing.  Thanks to the Trump Tax Plan, that expense (the 4th largest single item in the federal budget) will only increase in the future.

A president who brags about having the biggest button for the deployment of nuclear weapons on his desk makes the entire world less safe.  The Doomsday Clock has been set at 2 minutes to midnight by the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.  That is the lowest setting since 1953, which was caused by the U.S.'s first test of a thermonuclear weapon.

Our government is in dysfunctional distress.  Approval ratings of Congress and Donald Trump are at historic lows.  Precarious is indeed the state of our union.

Trump's State Department is fighing marriage equality

In June of 2013, the United States Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  There were a number of principles involved in the decision.  One was that the law mandated that the federal government refuse to consider same-sex marriages as having validity.  That went against a long-held precept that the institution of marriage was the province of the states and not the federal government.  Another was that DOMA, in allowing states to rule same-sex marriage illegal was in violation of the Equal Protection doctrine.

That should have been the end of it.  From that point forward, married persons should have been afforded all of the same rights, protections, privileges and responsibilities under federal law; without regard to whether or not they were a same-sex couple.  

But now the Trump Administration's State Department has refused to grant citizenship to one of two twin boys born to a same-sex married couple.  

Meet Elad Dvash-Banks, his husband Andrew and their twin boys, Ethan and Alden.  The twins were born by the same surrogate mother in September of 2016.  Elad is the biological father of Ethan while Andrew is the biological father of Alden.  That is where the State Department is raising an objection.

The consular official who told the couple that she could require the two fathers to submit to DNA testing to prove there is a biological connection between both children and Andrew.  This is based on a case, Parham v Clinton.  In that case, a lawsuit filed by a U.S. citizen and his Filipino wife was dismissed by the court system.  They had applied for citizenship for the couple's children and officials at the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines had required the couple to submit DNA information.  The lawsuit claimed this was a violation of their rights.

This is where we get into the difference between laws and regulations.  The law as written by Congress doesn't mention biology in this area.  It reads as follows:

(g)

a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h)

a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

The "rule" that allows State Department personnel to require DNA testing in such instances is set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations.  The question is, are the regulations as presently promulgated current with the decision to overturn DOMA. 

The fact that Andrew is not the biological father of Ethan should not invalidate the rights of this couple to be able to obtain citizenship for both of the twins.  In the case of a same-sex married couple, if a child can be proven to be the biological child of EITHER of the parents, then citizenship should be conferred on that child as stated in the law.

The next government shutdown

The first federal government shutdown of 2018 lasted all of three days.  Before you breathe a big sigh of relief, we may be in for another one in a very short time.  Our elected leadership bought a mere three weeks with their continuing funding resolution, setting February 8th as the new deadline for shutdown.

The process currently in use by the Congress to pass the budget became law in 1976.  Since then we have had government shutdowns of one day or more in:

1980

1981

1984

1986

1990

1995

1996

2013

2018

What makes this most recent shutdown unique is that this was the first time that one political party was in control of the House, Senate and White House when it happened.  Does that mean they had complete control of the government and Democrats share none of the blame?  No.  The filibuster rule in the Senate allowed the Democrats to try to leverage Republicans to compromise on a core issue that they weren't willing to budge on.

In the end though, I place 95% of the blame on the Republican leadership.  Donald Trump gave them six months to come up with a legislative solution to address the issue of those impacted by his decision to end the DACA program.  They failed to do so.  DACA was a Band-Aid applied to the wound that is our nation's failure to address the issue of the presence of those who entered our nation illegally.  So the Congress failed to fix a problem that a Band-Aid could not fix.

That is not an acceptable reason for yet another instance of a government shutdown.  The problem isn't the issue of illegal immigration, or Trump's "wall" or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).  The problem is that our current process of funding the federal government is dysfunctional.

As the Pew Research Center points out, interest on our national debt is estimated to take up nearly 7% of all federal spending, making it the 4th largest single item in the federal budget.  More than 30 years have gone by since the passage of the first "Balanced Budget Act."  Despite that law there have been only four years during that period where federal spending did not exceed federal revenues.  Those years were during the presidency of Bill Clinton.  However, both political parties claim credit for those balanced budgets.  Why?  Because Republicans controlled Congress and Bill Clinton is a Democrat.

Congress is supposed to pass 12 separate spending bills each year to enact the complete federal budget.  That process dates back to 1977 and there were only four occasions during those four decades where they did the entire process on time.

Worse yet, the current process allows members of the House and Senate to add unrelated items to great big budget bills in an effort to hide their wasteful spending.  You can read more about earmarks and other examples of pork barrel spending in the annual Pig Book published by Citizens Against Government Waste.

Senator James Lankford (R- OK) published his own report, titled Federal Fumbles.  It gives us a vital factoid in exploring why Congress struggles each year to pass a budget on time.  He points out that at the end of October in their first year in office, 375 of President George W. Bush's nominees had been confirmed by the Senate.  The tally for President Obama's nominees at the same point in time was 359.  For Donald Trump that number is only 172.  That is because there are a number of senators who are insisting that the Senate conduct the full 30 hours of debate allowed under Senate Rules.  This is a waste of time since the nominees are already debated in committee.  The 30 hour debate could and should be limited.  If the Senate wants to debate these nominees on the floor for protracted periods, maybe they could shorten the process in committee.

* * *

The problem is that there are no incentives and no penalties for the Congress to get the budget done on time.  That is what should change.  There are no protections to limit the attachment of unrelated amendments to spending bills.  That is what needs to change.

I would love to see the Constitution amended to impose hard deadlines on the budget process.  There should be a firm deadline for the President to deliver their budget proposal to the Congress on January 2nd of each year.  The House and the Senate should be mandated to pass their separate spending bills no later than July 31st of each year.  That would give them 45 days to work out differences in their appropriations bills in conference committee.  That would ensure that the bill would arrive on the President's desk no later than September 15th of each year, giving that person two weeks to sign the bill before the end of the federal government's fiscal year on September 30th.

If the House or the Senate fails to pass all of the appropriation bills on time, then the following should occur.

1.  Pay for all elected members of the House, Senate or both (if both fail to meet the deadline) stops.  The pay is lost permanently.

2.  The House, Senate or both (if both fail to meet the deadline) are prohibited from adjourning or recessing until they pass the required bills.

3.  Debate on any other pending legislation is suspended until the spending bills are passed.

Strong incentives to get them to do the job they were elected to do, and have consistently failed to do for decades seem fair to me.  What do you think?

The sins of the parents...

George Steinbrenner is best known for owning the New York Yankees, beginning in 1973.  He issued unusual edicts to his players.  He instituted an appearance policy that said "All players, coaches and male executives are forbidden to display any facial hair other than mustaches (except for religious reasons), and scalp hair may not be grown below the collar. Long sideburns and 'mutton chops' are not specifically banned."  

You may have known that.  Did you know that Mr. Steinbrenner was a convicted felon?  He pleaded guilty in 1974 to conspiracy and making illegal campaign contributions to the Richard Nixon reelection campaign.  Doing that avoided his being tried on a 15 count indictment brought by Watergate prosecutor Leon Jaworski.

The campaign contributions that were illegal came in the form of employees of Mr. Steinbrenner's business, American Shipbuilding Company, being paid money through payroll that they would then turn around and donate in their own names to the Nixon campaign.  This allowed the existing campaign contribution limits to be ignored.

Hank Steinbrenner and his brother Hal Steinbrenner now own the Yankees.  They were born prior to 1973 when the campaign contributions were made.  Let's suppose for a moment that Mr. Steinbrenner had opened accounts in the names of his sons and donated money from those accounts to the Nixon campaign.

Should his sons be held liable for what he did?  Hank was 16 at the time and Hal was only 4.  To hold them responsible for what their father did seems unfair.  Yet that is the logic of deporting people who were children when their parents (or others) brought them to the United States in violation of our immigration laws.  Why is someone held responsible for an action that took place when they were incapable of forming any criminal intent?  

To those who say deportation is not a punishment, are you kidding me?  To those who say ICE isn't going too far in their enforcement actions at the moment, are you seriously deluded?

Jorge Garcia was brought to the U.S. when he was 10 years old.  He has never been convicted of a crime.  He has never even received a traffic ticket.  He lived in the Detroit area with his wife and their two children.  He was deported back to Mexico on January 15th, the day we celebrated the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  He sought to become a legal resident, but the first attorney "botched" the paperwork.  In spite of the family spending over $125,000 trying to get legal status for him, he is now in Mexico.

Lukasz Niec is an interal medicine doctor at a hospital in Michigan.  He has a "green card" but was arrested by ICE.  The family suspects the reason for his arrest is that he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge when he was 17 years old.  He and his family were not informed at the time that a guilty plea could put his permanent residency in jeopardy.

I suspect that ICE is going after Dr. Niec and other Caucasians who they can find a way to begin deportation proceedings for, in order to try to fight allegations that the Trump Administration's handling of this issue is racist.  

If a child's parent files a fraudulent tax return using the child in a scheme to pay less income tax, it is the parent who is punished.  Not the child.  If a parent (or someone else) brings a child across the border in violation of the law, the parent is responsible and should be the only one held accountable.

This is why our immigration system must be fixed.  Not just DACA.  I have no problem with finding a way to seal the border, although building a great big wall isn't the answer.  One way to approach the problem is to spend the money that would go toward building a wall into enforcement of current immigration law/problems.  Ensure those here on tourist and student visas leave when those visas expire.  Track the presence of citizens of the 38 nations who can come to the U.S. for business or pleasure without a visa much more closely.  

Dreamers is not the best label for those brought here as children.  Innocents is a better label.

While the world (locally) sleeps

Something woke me around 2:30 a.m. I tossed and turned for about 25 more minutes and then gave up on trying to fall asleep again.  Since I am now wide awake, I figured I might as well blog.  Thus, this collection of random ponderings.

* * *

The government hadn't even finished determining it would be shutting down before the finger-pointing began.  Considering that the Republicans control Congress and the White House, it is difficult for them to escape the blame.  Except for the fact that getting the latest continuing resolution passed in the Senate requires 60 votes and the majority of the Republicans there is only 51 to 49.

The last government shutdown was in 2013.  Back then, citizen Donald Trump had a few things to say about the shutdown.

Of course, now he is singing a much different tune.  It is the fault of the Democrats  He is never to blame for anything.  A previous president had something very different to say on where responsibility resides.

That famous sign says it perfectly.  If the job of the president; as Mr. Trump said a little over four years ago, is to get all the people together in a room and make the deal, why can't he do that?  After all, he wrote a book titled "The Art of the Deal."

A Fox News poll taken during the 2013 government shutdown laid blame on the various players in this drama.  20%, fully one-fifth of those polled, blamed both sides for that fiasco.  Republicans got the blame from 42% of those polled, while President Obama was blamed by 24%.

Who do you blame?

* * *

I'd have read the story in the L.A. Times about the steep increase in the price of season seats for the Dodgers even if someone I bowled with back in the late 1970s wasn't featured prominently in it.  But he was.

That's Bill Snoberger and his fiancée Mary Jones.  Their season seats in the nosebleed section known as the "Top Deck" have gone up 45% over the last two years.  Last year's package was $315 from the prior year, and now they've been hit with another increase; $505.

Top deck tickets are a bargain compared to other sports, but season seats is a big commitment.  Pro football teams play 8 regular season home games.  That's after 2 preseason home games.  The NBA home season is 41 games after a number of preseason home games that vary due to some being played off-site.  The NHL schedule is roughly the same with the recent expansion.  The Dodgers play 81 regular season home games and 1 or 2 preseason games at home during the "Freeway Series."

The top deck seats at Dodgers Stadium will run Bill and his fiancée $16 each, per game next seaon.
The NHL website says full-season ticket packages for the Kings start at $40 per game.
The cheapest full-season ticket package for the Lakers start at $38 per game.
The cheapest full-season ticket package for the Rams is $45 per game, although that price is expected to skyrocket beginning in 2019 when their new stadium will be used.

Let's do the math:

Dodgers:  $16 * 81 home games = $1,296
Kings:  $40 * 41 home games = $1,640
Lakers: $38 * 41 home games = $1,558
Rams:  $45 * 8 home games = $360

According to the website Statista dot com, the average price of a Dodgers ticket rose from $20.09 in 2006 to $31.90 in 2016.  The CPI inflation calculator says that $20.09 in 2000 had the buying power of $27.88 in 2016.

In the end, when you love your team, you write the check.

* * *

"A sentence of seven years for manslaughter is not out of the ordinary" is a line from a story in the San Jose Mercury News regarding the sentencing of 40 year old Yarenit Malihan.

She killed a 3 year old child while she was driving under the influence (DUI).  The plea deal she reached with prosecutors called for that seven year sentence reference above, but her total time behind bars will probably be less than that amount with time-off for good behavior.

Is this appropriate?  Does your response to that question change when informed that at the time of the DUI where she killed someone, she was out on bail pending another DUI charge?  Or that she was arrested for public intoxication AFTER her second DUI?

How about when you learn that she is the wife of a Alameda County Deputy Sheriff?

Why not order people charged with DUI who are granted bail to abstain from alcohol/drugs or face immediate revocation and forfeiture of that bail?

* * *

Best sign from all of the women's marches held yesterday?

Maybe this one:

* * *

Talking Tax Reform - Part VII

In Part V of this series, we discussed the pending elimination of the deduction for unreimbursed employment expenses for people who are paid as W-2 employees.  I promised to discuss how the loan-out corporation would work to help some people in this situation.

I have a number of clients who work in the entertainment industry and last year; prior to tax reform passing, that client decided to form a loan-out corporation.  This client earns a good living and decided to take advantage of one provision of the difference between being employed by someone else, and being employed by your own S-corporation.

The business employing this client did not offer a retirement plan.  By forming their own loan-out corporation, this client can put aside much more money for retirement on a pre-tax basis.

Contributions to Traditional Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRA) are limited to $5,500 annually.  That limit is increased to $6,500 for taxpayers over the age of 50.  For employees whose employer offers a retirement plan, those limits rise to $18,000 and $24,000 respectively.

By forming their own loan-out corporation, my client now gets to contribute the higher limit amount to their retirement plan.  They also will get the benefit of being able to continue to deduct their unreimbursed employment expenses, which would have been lost starting this year.

This is a good solution for people with solid incomes, large amounts of unreimbursed expenses and an employer willing to contract with the loan-out corporation rather than continuing the employer/employee relationship.  But what about those people whose employers can't or won't do that?

For some there is another answer and that is changing their status to that of a Statutory Employee.  The fourth of the scenarios where it is allowed for an employee to be treated in this manner is the one worth exploring here.

A full-time traveling or city salesperson who works on your behalf and turns in orders to you from wholesalers, retailers, contractors, or operators of hotels, restaurants, or other similar establishments. The goods sold must be merchandise for resale or supplies for use in the buyer’s business operation. The work performed for you must be the salesperson's principal business activity.

I have a number of clients who could fit into this scenario.  They would still be employees, still paid through payroll and would be issued a W-2 form at year-end.  But they would be allowed to deduct their unreimbursed employment expenses on a Schedule C on their tax return.  They get the benefits of being an employee of payroll, benefits, and so on, but would not lose that itemized deduction for their business expenses.

This won't work for people who sell services.  But it is a viable alternative for a number of people.

And here is that reminder that the Trump Tax Plan is simply a massive giveaway to the wealthy being paid for by the addition of $1.5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

Aziz Ansari - differing viewpoints

Babe dot net lived in relative obscurity until it published a piece by author Katie Way.  The woman who described her encounter with Aziz Ansari was labeled as "Grace" in the piece.

In an era where accusations of rape/sexual assault/sexual harassment leveled at Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, James Toback and so many others, naturally this story went viral.  No surprise there.  But unlike a lot of similar stories being discussed, debated and dissected on social media, the response here was very split.  One group decried what Mr. Ansari is accused of having done.  It is important to note that this is an accusation, as he claims the sex was completely consensual.

Another group has a very different take on what transpired in the publication of this article.  One of the most well-known people speaking out on this is Headline News Network's Ashleigh Banfield.  She spoke out while on-air:

"By your own description, this wasn't a rape, nor was it a sexual assault."
"So what exactly is your beef?  That you had a bad date with Aziz Ansari?
"Is that what victimized you to the point of seeking a public conviction? And a career-ending sentence against him? Is that truly what you thought he deserved for your night out?”

Caitlin Flanagan, who is a contributing editor for The Atlantic wrote a piece on this subject as well.  She writes:

"Was Grace frozen, terrified, stuck? No. She tells us that she wanted something from Ansari and that she was trying to figure out how to get it. She wanted affection, kindness, attention. Perhaps she hoped to maybe even become the famous man’s girlfriend. He wasn’t interested. What she felt afterward—rejected yet another time, by yet another man—was regret. And what she and the writer who told her story created was 3,000 words of revenge porn. The clinical detail in which the story is told is intended not to validate her account as much as it is to hurt and humiliate Ansari. Together, the two women may have destroyed Ansari’s career, which is now the punishment for every kind of male sexual misconduct, from the grotesque to the disappointing."

There was a tweet from Jessica Valenti, author of Full Frontal Feminism:

"A lot of men will read that post about Aziz Ansari and see an everyday, reasonable sexual interaction. But part of what women are saying right now is that what the culture considers "normal" sexual encounters are not working for us, and oftentimes harmful."

In analyzing this situation it is important to take note of a few of the facts.

This was not a workplace situation.
This was not a situation where a producer or other person in power was interacting with someone seeking to advance their career.
Grace was not being held against her will.

It should also be noted that:

A woman (or a man for that matter) should have the right to say no at any time.
The situation is so difficult that California passed a law (SB 967) requiring "affirmative consent" which is defined as affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement; for college students.
A study of more than 150,000 college women revealed that nearly one in four had been the victim of a sexual assault.

I don't date and I'm 58 years old, but if I were in the dating pool, I would be giving serious consideration to using a similar document to ensure there were absolutely no questions about any sexual encounters being completely consensual.  Maybe I am paranoid.  Maybe I'm just prudent.

I do believe that what happened to Grace was not rape, but was it completely consensual?  Is she to be blamed for not simply walking out of Mr. Ansari's home when he asked her to perform oral sex on him, after he had performed it on her?  In the Babe Dot Com piece, Grace said:

"When Ansari told her he was going to grab a condom within minutes of their first kiss, Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’” She says he then resumed kissing her, briefly performed oral sex on her, and asked her to do the same thing to him. She did, but not for long. “It was really quick. Everything was pretty much touched and done within ten minutes of hooking up, except for actual sex.”

Should she have been more forceful after saying let's chill and not let him resume kissing her?  Easy to judge since we weren't there.  

When I was working as a military law enforcement specialist, one of the things I disliked dealing with most was the "he said/she said" and this is part of that spectrum.  It is incumbent on men to be sure they aren't misreading signals given off by women while at the same time, women need to be clearer about what is and isn't acceptable.   Is Grace a victim?  That's for every individual to form their own opinion.  But if Grace feels herself to be a victim, from her perspective, she is.  We need to respect that.

Ashleigh Banfield said that by Grace's own description what happened to her wasn't rape or sexual assault.  Grace says that while it took time to get to the position where she believes herself to be a victim of sexual assault, she got there.  Ms Banfield was not there.  

* * *

Sexual assault is a crime.  If that is what happened, the legal system is the best and most appropriate forum for seeking justice and/or redress.  Not the court of public opinion.

It should have ended with the public debating, discussing and dissecting Grace's description of her encounter.  But Katie Way felt the need to go off on Ashleigh Banfield.  The email Ms Way sent out bears reading in its entirety:

"It's an unequivocal no from me. The way your colleague Ashleigh (?), someone I'm certain no one under the age of 45 has ever heard of, by the way, ripped into my source directly was one of the lowest, most despicable things I've ever seen in my entire life. Shame on her. Shame on HLN. Ashleigh could have "talked" to me. She could have "talked" to my editor or my publication. But instead, she targeted a 23-year-old woman in one of the most vulnerable moments of her life, someone she's never f---ing met before, for a little attention. I hope the ratings were worth it! I hope the ~500 RTs on the single news write-up made that burgundy lipstick bad highlights second-wave feminist has-been feel really relevant for a little while. She DISGUSTS me, and I hope when she has more distance from the moment she has enough of a conscience left to feel remotely ashamed — doubt it, but still. Must be nice to piggyback off of the fact that another woman was brave enough to speak up and add another dimension to the societal conversation about sexual assault. Grace wouldn't know how that feels, because she struck out into this alone, because she's the bravest person I've ever met. I would NEVER go on your network. I would never even watch your network. No woman my age would ever watch your network. I will remember this for the rest of my career — I'm 22 and so far, not too shabby! And I will laugh the day you fold. If you could let Ashleigh know I said this, and that she is no-holds-barred the reason, it'd be a real treat for me."

No one under 45 has ever heard of Ashleigh Banfield?  Data shows that HLN and E! have more Twitter mentions among females, and a higher percentage of those mentions coming from people under 30.

"...feel relevant for a little while."  That's the height of projection.  You're the 22 year old who puffs up her profile with a "...so far, not too shabby" comment that is something I'd expect from a self-aggrandizing asshole like Donald Trump, not a young journalist trying to get ahead.  You talk about 500 retweets as a pejorative.

I just checked.  Ms Way has at this moment, 3,042 followers on Twitter.  Ms Banfield has 82,100.  Ms Way is a creative intern at Inverse.com and has been on staff at Babe Dot Com since October of 2017.  Ms Banfield was covering 9/11 right on the scene, covered the war in Iraq and has been host of a major cable news network show for years.  Ms Banfield has the relevance and credential that Ms Way can only dream of someday obtaining.

I wonder if there will come a time in the future when Ms Way will wish she hadn't written that email.

Homeschooling in California

The discovery of the conditions that 13 children of a Perris, CA couple were living in has raised questions about the lack of oversight of homeschooling in California.  The children of David and Louise Turpin ranged in age from 2 to 29, but all appeared to be minors due to stunted growth and malnourishment.

The parents had homeschooled their children and the calls for stricter oversight of homeschooled children are coming from all quarters.  A L.A. Times editorial published today (January 18, 2018) claims that a "reasonable, non-bureaucratic set of rules" might look like this:

"Annual inspections by school districts, reimbursed by the state, to ensure that students are learning in a basically decent environment. The inspectors would interview students privately so that they could feel safe talking about any abuse and would review the educational plan and a portfolio of the student’s work to see whether the parents are actually teaching."

That is actually a decent starting point.  But before we delve into what level of oversight is required, and what factors drive the need for oversight, let's look at how easy it is to begin homeschooling your kids in California.  Here is the affidavit that is the only paperwork needed to comply with current state law.  

Then there is the fact that homeschooling is actually an industry in California.  There are a number of charter schools that work with parents engaged in homeschooling, to comply with state requirements.  And to get their hands on state funds.  

The National Education Association's 2016 report says that California's per pupil spending was $10,329.  That ranked the state 26th in the nation.  Where does that money go in the case of homeschooled students who aren't part of the cottage industry in charter schools enrolling these homeschooled students?  Good question.  Better question is, where did the funding for the four or five school-age children among the 13 victims in Perris?

Just how many children are homeschooled in California?  California's population is around 36 million.  Conservative estimates are that 15% of that population is in the age range where they would be enrolled K-12.  That's 5,400,000.  The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) estimates that 3.4% of the school-age population is homeschooled, nationwide.  I'm going to estimate that 4% of the school-age population in CA is homeschooled and that's over 200,000 students.  If you multiply the per-pupil spending by the estimated number of homeschooled students in California, we're looking at over $2 billion.

Oversight of homeschooled children is therefore not just about preventing more incidents like what happened in Perris.  The reality is that there are not large numbers of parents using homeschooling as a way to avoid scrutiny of how they are abusing their children.  At the same time we need to ensure that homeschool operations are subjected to a concordant amount of scrutiny as public and private schools are.

You want to work at a public or private school; in any capacity, and you have to undergo fingerprinting, a criminal background check, TB testing and more.  School facilities are subject to a higher level of safety requirements than homes where children are homeschooled are.  So something more than what currently exists needs to be implemented without being overly intrusive into a person's residence.

* * *

The finance piece is also worthy of additional scrutiny.  How much money does a charter school get to keep for being the "face" of a homeschool facility?  Thousands of dollars that pads their budget?  

Private school is a choice.  A choice that parents need to bear the expense of.  Homeschooling is a similar choice.  The parents that choose to homeschool should not be getting government funding to offset those expenses.  The public school system is available to them and if they choose to spurn it, they are assuming the expense of educating their children.

Make them pay for that choice.

Donald Trump demands the truth

Donald J. Trump doesn't like any criticism leveled at him.  He labels it as fake news.  He calls it a lie.  And now he's demanding that everyone else tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Maybe he's right.  After all, that would allow a number of people who are public figures who were defamed by falsehoods.

Former President Barrack Obama could sue Trump for falsely claiming that his birthplace was Kenya and not Hawaii.

Senator Ted Cruz could sue Trump for falsely claiming that Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could sue Trump for falsely claiming that she lied to the FBI.

Author Michael Wolff (Fire and Fury) could sue Trump for falsely claiming he never spoke to the author.

Senator Bob Corker could sue Trump for falsely claiming that Corker "...gave us the Iran deal."

* * *

Now we, the people, cannot sue him for the numerous times he has lied to us as a whole.  Here is a list of just some of those lies:

"The tax bill is going to cost me a fortune, this thing, believe me."

"This is the biggest tax cut in history."

"We’ve signed more bills -- and I’m talking about through the legislature -- than any president ever."

"Just arrived in Italy for the G7.  Trip has been very successful.  We made and saved the USA many billions of dollars and millions of jobs."

There are dozens and dozens of additional lies that could be added, but the point is made.  This person lies as easily as the rest of us breathe.  Maybe that's not fair.  After all, I often struggle to breathe while he never struggles to lie.

* * *

Lying isn't his only fault.  Nor is it his worst fault.  But for him to whine about being libeled when he libels and defames so many others is just ridiculous.

Monday was the official holiday celebrating Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday.  What did the #LiarInChief do?  He played golf.

The Obamas would spend that day doing volunteer work.

President George W. Bush joined volunteers sending postcards to victims of Hurricane Katrina.

President Bill Clinton spent one MLK holiday helping AmeriCorps volunteers painting and repairing a senior center.

Not only did Trump play golf rather than engaging in the type of service he exhorted others to do, his golf outing was once again omitted from his public schedule.  Why?  Because it would make it easier to continue to highlight his hypocrisy.

In eight years, President Obama played 333 rounds of golf.  But he played on 26 in his first year.  We know that Trump played 44 rounds of golf in his 91 visits to his courses thus far in his first year.  This after saying over and over again, he would be too busy to play golf anywhere near as much as President Obama did.

Trump may have filed for business bankruptcy four times, but in terms of moral bankruptcy, he resides there personally.

The gender pay gap in Hollywood

Mark Wahlberg was paid $1.5 million for ten days of reshoots to finish the film All the Money In The World.  Michelle Williams, who has top billing in the film, was paid $1,000 for the same ten days of reshoots.  That ignited a firestorm on social media.  Mr. Wahlberg wound up donating the entire $1.5 million to the Times Up movement, in the name of Ms Williams.  The agency that represents both of them, William Morris Endeavor (WME) donated $500,000 to the same fund.

Much of the criticism is aimed directly at the agency for allowing the pay disparity to have been created.  For those living in an entertainment industry news vacuum, the reshoots were required in order for Christopher Plummer to replace Kevin Spacey in the role of J. Paul Getty.  Mr. Spacey was erased from the film after being accused of sexual assault on young men.

The film's director, Ridley Scott, said that he and Ms Williams had done the reshoots for free and that was widely reported at the time.  USA Today is credited for breaking the story of the pay disparity on January 9, 2018 but the Washington Post had run a story on the pay gap between the two in November of last year.  That story got no traction at all.  

The issues are nowhere near as simple as a great big disparity between a man and a woman who happen to both be actors.  One of the issues is that while they are both represented by WME, they have different individuals as their primary representation, according to multiple sources.  That factoid is left out of almost every single news item reporting on the pay disparity.

Then there is the issue that Mr. Wahlberg is a much more "bankable" name on a movie marquee.  While Ms Williams is a multiple Oscar nominee, and a tremendously talented actress, her ability to fill seats in an auditorium is nowhere near that of Mr. Wahlberg.

Which leads us into another factoid that is being ignored almost entirely in this discussion.  Mr. Wahlberg, who Forbes Magazine named the highest paid actor of the year last August (claiming he earned $68 million in "pre-tax and pre-fee earnings), took an 80% reduction in his usual movie salary to do this film.  Deadline reports that his name was critical to the film's ability to land most of the foreign sales.

There is a long history of disparity about pay, billing and even dialogue in Hollywood.  In producing the 1974 film The Towering Inferno, Paul Newman and Steve McQueen had to be given equal pay, equal billing and an equal number of lines of dialogue.  When it was discovered that Newman had 12 more lines of dialogue than McQueen did, reshoots were necessary.  William Holden had also demanded top billing in that film.  He was the only Oscar winner (at the time) among the three men, but his "stardom" had been surpassed by the other two.

Jennifer Lawrence's essay on the gender pay gap, written two years ago, is relevant.  It is wrong for a woman to be paid less for the same work than a man.  But I stand by my comments written in response to that essay that the fact that a man and a woman (or another man for that matter) may have the same number of lines in a film, or the same number of minutes on screen; automatically means they are doing the same "work."

"Movies are investments.  Acting is a job but it isn't like any other job in that the box office receipts of the film are indeed a function of who the actor/actress is and their ability to bring people into the auditoriums where the film is being shown.  Performers are paid not just for their ability to perform, but their ability to generate revenues.  If a producer believes that one name on the marquee is more valuable than another, why wouldn't they pay that performer a higher salary to be able to put that name up there."

Is the William Morris Endeavor agency to blame for the disparity?  Are they failing in a duty to fairly and equitably represent all of their clients equally?  It is an interesting question.  If each has their own individual agent within the agency, do those agents have a fiduciary duty to work together to ensure equity?  I wouldn't have thought so.  Then came this statement from the agency itself:

“The current conversation is a reminder that those of us in a position of influence have a responsibility to challenge inequities, including the gender wage gap."

I think they just assigned that duty to themselves based on that statement.