Latest news with #Alice-in-Wonderland
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Sentence before verdict: Trump's attack on Obama is straight out of Alice in Wonderland
Almost every American knows that in our legal system, people accused of crimes are presumed innocent. The burden is on the government to overcome that presumption and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Those simple but powerful maxims were once a source of national pride. They distinguished the United States from countries where government officials and political leaders branded the opponents guilty before they were charged with a crime or brought to trial. In Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, the Alice-in-Wonderland world of 'sentence first-verdict afterwards' came to life in infamous show trials. Those trials lacked all the requisites of fairness. Evidence was manufactured to demonstrate the guilt of the regime's enemies. Show trials told the story the government wanted told and were designed to signal that anyone, innocent or not, could be convicted of a crime against the state. So far, at least, this country has avoided Stalinesque show trials. But the logic of the show trial was very much on display this week in the Oval Office. In a now-familiar scene, during a meeting with the Philippines president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Donald Trump went off script. He turned a reporter's question about the unfolding Jeffrey Epstein scandal into an occasion to say that former president Barack Obama had committed 'treason' by interfering in the 2016 presidential election. 'He's guilty,' Trump asserted, 'This was treason. This was every word you can think of.' Speaking after the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, the president said: 'Obama was trying to lead a coup. And it was with Hillary Clinton.' Republican congressmen and senators, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who investigated allegations of Obama's involvement five years ago, found nothing to support them. But none of that mattered to the president on Tuesday. As Trump put it: 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.' Not hiding his motives, Trump said: 'It's time to start after what they did to me.' Guilt first. Charges, trials and other legal niceties come later. This is American justice, Donald Trump-style. He wants no part of the long and storied tradition in which presidents kept an arms-length relationship with the justice department and did not interfere with its decisions about whether and whom to prosecute for crimes. What Trump said about Obama is, the New York Times notes, 'a stark example of his campaign of retribution against an ever-growing list of enemies that has little analogue in American history'. Putting one of his predecessors on trial also would take some of the sting out of Trump's own dubious distinction of being the only former president to have been convicted of a felony. Some may be tempted to write off the president's latest Oval Office pronouncements as an unhinged rant or only an effort to distract attention from Trump's Epstein troubles. But that would be a mistake. A recent article by the neuroscientist Tali Sharot and the law professor Cass Sunstein helps explain why. That article is titled: 'Will We Habituate to the Decline of Democracy?' Sharot and Sunstein argue that America is on the cusp of a dangerous moment in its political history. They say that we can understand why by turning to neuroscience, not to political science. Neuroscience teaches us that 'people are less likely to respond to or even notice gradual changes. That is largely due to habituation, which is the brain's tendency to react less and less to things that are constant or that change slowly.' In politics, 'when democratic norms are violated repeatedly, people begin to adjust. The first time a president refuses to concede an election, it's a crisis. The second time, it's a controversy. By the third time, it may be just another headline. Each new breach of democratic principles … politicizing the justice system … feels less outrageous than the last.' Americans must resist that tendency. To do so, Sharot and Sunstein argue, we need 'to see things not in light of the deterioration of recent years but in light of our best historical practices, our highest ideals, and our highest aspirations'. In the realm of respect for the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, we can trace those practices, ideals and aspirations back to 1770, when John Adams, a patriot, practicing lawyer and later the second president of the United States, agreed to defend British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Adams did so because he believed that everyone, no matter how reprehensible their act, was entitled to a defense. That principle meant that people needed to learn to withhold judgment, to respect evidence and to hear both sides of a story before making up their minds. That was a valuable lesson for those who would later want to lead our constitutional republic, as well as for its citizens. The trial of the British soldiers turned out, as the author Christopher Klein writes, to be 'the first time reasonable doubt had ever been used as a standard'. Fast forward to 1940, and the memorable speech of the attorney general, Robert Jackson, to a gathering of United States attorneys. What he said about their role might also be said about the president's assertions about Obama. Jackson observed that US attorneys had 'more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America'. A prosecutor, he explained, 'can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations … The prosecutor can order arrests … and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial.' Sound familiar? The president is not a prosecutor, but since he has returned to power, President Trump has behaved and encouraged those in the justice department to ignore Jackson's warnings that a prosecutor should focus on 'cases that need to be prosecuted' rather than 'people that he thinks he should get'. Targeting people, not crimes, means that the people prosecuted will be those who are 'unpopular with the predominant or governing group' or are 'attached to the wrong political views, or [are] personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself'. Jackson restated a long-cherished American ideal, namely that those with the power to ruin lives and reputations should seek 'truth and not victims' and serve 'the law and not factional purposes'. Since then, presidents of both parties, in even the most controversial cases and those involving allies or opponents, have heeded Jackson's warnings. They have said nothing about pending cases, let alone announcing that it's time 'to go after' people. But no more. The justice department seems ready and willing to do the president's bidding, even though there is no evidence that President Obama did anything wrong in regard to the 2016 election. In addition, he may have immunity from criminal prosecution for anything he did in his official capacity. Trump's attack on the 'traitorous' Obama may be predictable. But it should not be acceptable to any of us. Sharot and Sunstein get it right when they say, 'To avoid habituating ourselves to the torrent of President Trump's assaults on democracy and the rule of law, we need to keep our best practices, ideals, and aspirations firmly in view what we've done.' We need 'to compare what is happening today not to what happened yesterday or the day before, but to what we hope will happen tomorrow'. To get to that world, it is important to recall the words of John Adams and Robert Jackson and work to give them life again. Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress shouldn't kill this crucial energy industry tax deduction
Taxes on business are properly applied after subtracting production costs: wages and salaries, the costs of materials and energy, the costs of acquiring and maintaining buildings, and so on. After all, such costs are not part of business income — except to the extent that the payments for them are income for the underlying workers and suppliers, who pay the requisite taxes. Taxing the business income of any company without excluding such costs would be blatant double taxation. But what about the 'B-SALT' taxes, those paid by businesses to state and local governments? Analytically, such taxes are payments for the services delivered by states and localities. Whether those are worth the taxes paid — such taxes are not voluntary in the sense that most purchases in the private sector are — is an interesting question, but not relevant to the fundamental principle that B-SALT payments to governments are a cost of doing business. Accordingly, such taxes should be excluded from the definition of 'income' subject to other taxation. The B-SALT deduction is thus necessary and appropriate in a tax system for which the base is income minus costs. But there is some Republican support in Congress for eliminating or limiting the B-SALT deduction in order to help 'pay for' an extension of the 2017 tax cuts, as well as other tax cuts proposed by the second Trump administration and various members of Congress. The revenue purported to be 'saved' by limiting or eliminating the B-SALT deduction is not trivial: about $223 billion over 10 years if deductions are ended for state and local corporate income taxes, and about $209 billion if deductions are ended for property taxes. Only in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of congressional budgeting can an obvious tax increase imposed upon businesses be viewed as a 'savings.' The more relevant issue is the effect of policy shifts on the economy writ large and on specific sectors relative to others. A recent analysis from the Tax Foundation finds that elimination of the B-SALT deduction for both income and property taxes would reduce long-run GDP by 0.6 percent. The Tax Foundation report is unclear about how that GDP impact is calculated, but the central principle is sound: Eliminating or limiting the B-SALT deduction would represent a substantial increase in business taxation. The result would be less capital investment, reduced labor productivity, a decline in wages and lower overall GDP growth. The energy sector is particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of a B-SALT deductibility limitation or elimination, because in addition to income and property taxes, fossil fuel producers must pay substantial severance taxes to several states. In 2024, those payments totaled about $17.6 billion. Such severance payments demonstrate that fossil energy resources are a form of national wealth, the value of which is divided in among investors, workers, land owners and suppliers in proportions driven by competitive market prices. Governments receive a share, determined largely by state tax policies. For 2024, the Energy Information Administration reports 'first purchase prices' for crude oil at about $75 per barrel, and total production of about 4.8 billion barrels, yielding a gross output value of about $360 billion. For natural gas, it reports average wholesale prices of about $2 per 1,000 cubic feet, and production of about 37.8 trillion cubic feet, or a gross output value of about $76 billion in 2024. The total is about $436 billion. States and localities collect on average about 10 percent of the revenues from oil and gas sales. The federal corporate income tax rate is 21 percent. If we assume an effective tax rate of 15 percent after various deductions and credits, an elimination of the B-SALT deduction would increase the taxable incomes of fossil fuel producers by that 10 percent, and tax liabilities — a decrease in net income — by 1.5 percent. The production of oil and gas is capital intensive, so the ensuing effect on production would not be significant in the short run, because the capital assets would remain in place (although drilling rigs, for example, can be shut down). But in the long run, investment and production would be affected. Under reasonable assumptions about long-run supply conditions, a decline in net income of 1.5 percent would result in an annual production decrease of about 4 to 5 percent. That is not trivial. It would represent a decline of about $20 billion in national wealth that otherwise would be economically efficient to produce. The B-SALT deduction is not like the individual deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) allowed for people tabulating their federal income tax liabilities. Individuals are not businesses, and just as they are not allowed to deduct the ordinary costs of living (e.g., grocery bills), there is no justification for allowing a SALT deduction. That the U.S. tax code allows such a deduction, whether limited or not, is driven by special-interest demands in Congress for a SALT deduction as a means of shifting the costs of state and local government in high-tax states onto taxpayers in low-tax states. But that is distinct from the B-SALT deduction. State and local taxes paid by businesses are a cost of doing business. Congress should keep that central reality in mind. Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
01-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Congress shouldn't kill this crucial energy industry tax deduction
Taxes on business are properly applied after subtracting production costs: wages and salaries, the costs of materials and energy, the costs of acquiring and maintaining buildings, and so on. After all, such costs are not part of business income — except to the extent that the payments for them are income for the underlying workers and suppliers, who pay the requisite taxes. Taxing the business income of any company without excluding such costs would be blatant double taxation. But what about the 'B-SALT' taxes, those paid by businesses to state and local governments? Analytically, such taxes are payments for the services delivered by states and localities. Whether those are worth the taxes paid — such taxes are not voluntary in the sense that most purchases in the private sector are — is an interesting question, but not relevant to the fundamental principle that B-SALT payments to governments are a cost of doing business. Accordingly, such taxes should be excluded from the definition of 'income' subject to other taxation. The B-SALT deduction is thus necessary and appropriate in a tax system for which the base is income minus costs. But there is some Republican support in Congress for eliminating or limiting the B-SALT deduction in order to help 'pay for' an extension of the 2017 tax cuts, as well as other tax cuts proposed by the second Trump administration and various members of Congress. The revenue purported to be 'saved' by limiting or eliminating the B-SALT deduction is not trivial: about $223 billion over 10 years if deductions are ended for state and local corporate income taxes, and about $209 billion if deductions are ended for property taxes. Only in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of congressional budgeting can an obvious tax increase imposed upon businesses be viewed as a 'savings.' The more relevant issue is the effect of policy shifts on the economy writ large and on specific sectors relative to others. A recent analysis from the Tax Foundation finds that elimination of the B-SALT deduction for both income and property taxes would reduce long-run GDP by 0.6 percent. The Tax Foundation report is unclear about how that GDP impact is calculated, but the central principle is sound: Eliminating or limiting the B-SALT deduction would represent a substantial increase in business taxation. The result would be less capital investment, reduced labor productivity, a decline in wages and lower overall GDP growth. The energy sector is particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of a B-SALT deductibility limitation or elimination, because in addition to income and property taxes, fossil fuel producers must pay substantial severance taxes to several states. In 2024, those payments totaled about $17.6 billion. Such severance payments demonstrate that fossil energy resources are a form of national wealth, the value of which is divided in among investors, workers, land owners and suppliers in proportions driven by competitive market prices. Governments receive a share, determined largely by state tax policies. For 2024, the Energy Information Administration reports ' first purchase prices ' for crude oil at about $75 per barrel, and total production of about 4.8 billion barrels, yielding a gross output value of about $360 billion. For natural gas, it reports average wholesale prices of about $2 per 1,000 cubic feet, and production of about 37.8 trillion cubic feet, or a gross output value of about $76 billion in 2024. The total is about $436 billion. States and localities collect on average about 10 percent of the revenues from oil and gas sales. The federal corporate income tax rate is 21 percent. If we assume an effective tax rate of 15 percent after various deductions and credits, an elimination of the B-SALT deduction would increase the taxable incomes of fossil fuel producers by that 10 percent, and tax liabilities — a decrease in net income — by 1.5 percent. The production of oil and gas is capital intensive, so the ensuing effect on production would not be significant in the short run, because the capital assets would remain in place (although drilling rigs, for example, can be shut down). But in the long run, investment and production would be affected. Under reasonable assumptions about long-run supply conditions, a decline in net income of 1.5 percent would result in an annual production decrease of about 4 to 5 percent. That is not trivial. It would represent a decline of about $20 billion in national wealth that otherwise would be economically efficient to produce. The B-SALT deduction is not like the individual deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) allowed for people tabulating their federal income tax liabilities. Individuals are not businesses, and just as they are not allowed to deduct the ordinary costs of living (e.g., grocery bills), there is no justification for allowing a SALT deduction. That the U.S. tax code allows such a deduction, whether limited or not, is driven by special-interest demands in Congress for a SALT deduction as a means of shifting the costs of state and local government in high-tax states onto taxpayers in low-tax states. But that is distinct from the B-SALT deduction. State and local taxes paid by businesses are a cost of doing business. Congress should keep that central reality in mind.
The Independent
27-02-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Prada reconstructs femininity starting with the little black dress fit for a global 'black moment'
Prada opened its runway show during Milan Fashion Week on Thursday with its take on the little black dress, reflecting what Miuccia Prada called 'a very black moment' in world affairs. 'To work in this difficult moment is really tough,' Prada said backstage. Sidestepping overtly political discussion, she added: 'What we try to do are clothes that make sense for women today." Liberating women Prada's Fall-Winter 2025-26 collection aimed to liberate women from strictly feminine forms. In that way the little black dress series and other runway looks were loosely constructed, not body-hugging. Co-creative director Raf Simons said liberation was in itself an act of resistance. 'You cannot be liberated if you don't take a risk. There needs to be more resistance,' he said. The black numbers gave way to girlish knit dresses in Alice-in-Wonderland oversized proportions, layered over trousers for winter days on the playground. Pajamas made a now-familiar shift to daywear, with button tops tucked into sleeper skirts. Raw seams were intentionally revealed on garments. Waistlines were gathered as if by basting, and could be moved from the waist for a midi-skirt or over the bust for a minidress. 'I would also say that we have rejected a lot of construction," Simons said, specifically construction that restricts movement. Gestures of glamour It's a mix-and-match world at Prada and just about any of the pieces work as separates: Short-sleeve and tube knitwear tops were bedecked with baubles, like found treasures. Men's shirts scrunched messily at the waist, as if they came untucked. Staples were glammed up with faux fur stoles and fur lapels on coats, blazers and a striking lime green poncho. Prada VIPs American actress Hunter Schafer was among the front-row guests, invited in a show of support, the designers said. The trans actress posted recently that her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker. As usual, crowds of fans waited opposite the Fondazione Prada show space to shower adoration on VIPs. Other front-row stars included actresses Juliette Binoche, Gal Gadot, Maya Hawke and Chen Haoyu, along with Japanese singers Jo and Harua and Korean singer Karina. Is Prada shopping? Milan is abuzz with speculation over whether an Italian company might step forward to buy the rival fashion house Versace. Market speculation has focused on the Prada Group, which besides its namesake brand owns Miu Miu, the footwear brands Church's and Car Shoe, and Marchesi 1824 pastry shops. "I think it is on everybody's table," Prada said with a chuckle when asked about the Prada Group's interest.
Associated Press
27-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Associated Press
Prada reconstructs femininity starting with the little black dress fit for a global ‘black moment'
MILAN (AP) — Prada opened its runway show during Milan Fashion Week on Thursday with its take on the little black dress, reflecting what Miuccia Prada called 'a very black moment' in world affairs. 'To work in this difficult moment is really tough,' Prada said backstage. Sidestepping overtly political discussion, she added: 'What we try to do are clothes that make sense for women today.' Liberating women Prada's Fall-Winter 2025-26 collection aimed to liberate women from strictly feminine forms. In that way the little black dress series and other runway looks were loosely constructed, not body-hugging. Co-creative director Raf Simons said liberation was in itself an act of resistance. 'You cannot be liberated if you don't take a risk. There needs to be more resistance,' he said. The black numbers gave way to girlish knit dresses in Alice-in-Wonderland oversized proportions, layered over trousers for winter days on the playground. Pajamas made a now-familiar shift to daywear, with button tops tucked into sleeper skirts. Raw seams were intentionally revealed on garments. Waistlines were gathered as if by basting, and could be moved from the waist for a midi-skirt or over the bust for a minidress. 'I would also say that we have rejected a lot of construction,' Simons said, specifically construction that restricts movement. Gestures of glamour It's a mix-and-match world at Prada and just about any of the pieces work as separates: Short-sleeve and tube knitwear tops were bedecked with baubles, like found treasures. Men's shirts scrunched messily at the waist, as if they came untucked. Staples were glammed up with faux fur stoles and fur lapels on coats, blazers and a striking lime green poncho. Prada VIPs American actress Hunter Schafer was among the front-row guests, invited in a show of support, the designers said. The trans actress posted recently that her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker. As usual, crowds of fans waited opposite the Fondazione Prada show space to shower adoration on VIPs. Other front-row stars included actresses Juliette Binoche, Gal Gadot, Maya Hawke and Chen Haoyu, along with Japanese singers Jo and Harua and Korean singer Karina. Is Prada shopping? Milan is abuzz with speculation over whether an Italian company might step forward to buy the rival fashion house Versace. Market speculation has focused on the Prada Group, which besides its namesake brand owns Miu Miu, the footwear brands Church's and Car Shoe, and Marchesi 1824 pastry shops.
