Mediaboss Marketing

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Taxpayers and politicians are forever complaining about rich people taking advantage of loopholes in the tax code, but the IRS, Americas most beloved government agency, doesnt view things such as carried interest or the special tax treatment of offshore insurerswhich hedge funders parlayed into an elaborate tax-avoidance schemeas loopholes.

The law is the law, an agency spokesman told me recently, and subject to interpretation. If a family or company is audited and found in violation, it can settle up, protest to an IRS appeals board, or take the agency to tax courta little-known venue where the white-shoe lawyers for Americas dynasties ply their trade. If the well-heeled taxpayer loses their case, they can appeal. If they win, they may well stand to save millions of dollarsor billions. And often they win.

Thats assuming they are audited in the first place. President Joe Biden is prepared to announce that his administration will seek $80 billion to beef up IRS audits of high earnersa necessary move given that the water carriers for the dynasties have done their utmost to make such audits exceedingly rare. The Republican Party has waged open warfare on the IRS since at least 1994, chipping away at its resources and enforcement abilities even as mainstream Republican lawmakers and candidates called for the agencys abolition.

Administration officials estimate that a 10-year, $80 billion investment in IRS enforcement could yield $700 billion for the Treasury. And indeed, theres a lot of catching up to do when it comes to the superrich. By the end of the Bush years, the IRS was auditing fewer than 1 in 10 taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $10 millionplus, and just 1 in 15 with incomes from $5 million to $10 million.

These high-end audit rates increased substantially under President Barack Obama, but congressional Republicans, embittered by the passage of the Affordable Care Act and the surcharges it imposed on the wealthiest 1 percent, hit back hard. After regaining the House in 2010, they systematically eviscerated the IRS budget and launched a series of dog-and-pony-show hearings based on claims that the agency was unfairly targeting conservative nonprofits, though it later turned out the IRS was also scrutinizing liberal ones.

During a contentious 2015 hearing highlighted in a must-read piece by ProPublica, Representative Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, laid into John Koskinen, Obamas feisty IRS commissioner. Koskinen, in a recent speech, had griped that his overworked employees would have to do less with less, and referred to the assault on his budget as a tax cut for tax cheats.

What in the world were you thinking of? Kelly demanded. Such talk could crush worker morale and encourage tax evasion, he said. Koskinen countered that the cuts had indeed crippled his agencys ability to enforce the law, and now he was worried his congressional foes were about to make the situation worse. I dont want you saying later on, you know, you should have told us about this, that it is serious, he told the senators. It is serious.

Koskinens warnings were ignored, and the cuts continued. From 2010 to 2018, even as the IRS received 9 percent more tax returns, its budget was slashed by $2.9 billiona 20 percent reduction that cost the agency more than one-fifth of its workforce. Investigations of non-filers plummeted and the amount of outstanding tax debt the IRS formally wrote off (based on the 10-year statute of limitations for collections) more than doubledfrom less than $15 billion in 2010 to more than $34 billion in 2019.

Most notably, the bloodbath resulted in an exodus of experienced auditors, people with the expertise required to decode the financial voodoo of the wealthiest taxpayers and their deliberately opaque partnerships. It can take months to identify the person who represents the partnership, IRS auditors told the Government Accountability Office in 2014.

Virtually no partnerships were audited in 2018. By then, with Donald Trump in the Oval Office, the kneecapped IRS was scrutinizing the individual returns of just 0.03 percent of those $10 millionplus taxpayers, down from a peak of 23 percent in 2010. Audits of the $5 millionto$10 million filers fell from just under 15 percent to a scant 0.04 percent.

A fair subset of superwealthy Americans doesnt even bother filing. The Treasury Departments Inspector General for Tax Administration reported in 2020 that nearly 880,000 high income non-filers from 2014 through 2016 still owed $46 billion, and the IRS was in no condition, resource-wise, to collect. The 300 biggest delinquents owed about $33 million per head, on average. Fifteen percent of their cases had been closed without examination by IRS staffers, and another one-third werent even in line to be worked.

The dynasties, in short, were safe. But now, with a new sheriff in town, it seems theyll have to watch their backs.

The above was adapted from senior editor Michael Mechanics new book, Jackpot: How the Super-Rich Really Liveand How Their Wealth Harms Us All. (April 2021, Simon & Schuster, all rights reserved)

See the rest here:
The IRS Used to Be a Guard Dog. Republicans Neutered It. Mother Jones - Mother Jones

In the wake of last years Black Lives Matter protests, Republican lawmakers are advancing a a number of new anti-protest measures at the state level including multiple bills that specifically make it easier for drivers to run down protesters.

The most recent example of such a law came Wednesday, when Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a new law that effectively allows drivers to hit people with a car in a specific set of circumstances.

Under the new law, an Oklahoma driver will no longer be liable for striking or even killing a person if the driver is fleeing from a riot ... under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death.

The measure also creates new penalties for protesters who obstruct streets or vehicle traffic, including hefty fines of up to $5,000 and as much as a year in jail.

Critics argue that the law will allow people to specifically target public protesters, with little ramification, but Republicans have promoted similar measures alongside the rise of the Movement for Black Lives in recent years, and such laws have received renewed conservative support after last summers protest movement.

At its peak in June 2020, Black Lives Matter protests may have composed the single largest protest movement in US history, according to the New York Times, with as many as 26 million people nationwide demonstrating in support of racial justice and police reform following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Those protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, according to the Washington Post, and almost 98 percent resulted in no injuries to participants, bystanders or police. However, many Republican lawmakers have pushed a draconian legislative response anyway even as incidents of drivers running down protesters have increased nationwide.

In addition to the Oklahoma measure, Republicans in Iowas House passed a bill earlier this month that would carve out similar protections from civil liability for drivers who hit protesters with a car, and on Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a broad anti-protest measure into law that does the same.

These recent measures build upon laws proposed in 2017 the same year that Heather Heyer, an anti-racist protester, was killed by a white supremacist driver during protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. That driver purposefully sped into a crowd of people; the anti-protest laws passed recently offer different levels of protection depending on a drivers motivations.

As Vices Tess Owen explains, the new Florida law creates civil immunity for people who drive into crowds of protesters, meaning they wont be sued for damages if people get hurt or killed if they claim self-defense.

The Iowa bill would also grant civil immunity to drivers who hit protesters blocking traffic, so long as the driver was not engaging in reckless or willful misconduct.

But only the Oklahoma law creates both criminal and civil immunity for drivers who hit protesters with their cars while fleeing.

If the recent spate of anti-protest measures in Florida, Iowa, and Oklahoma is disturbing on its face, however, context does little to make it better. There is a specific history in the US of the far right using cars as weapons, and its not hard to see how bills like the one that is now law in Oklahoma might only make things worse.

The most notable example is from August 2017: Heyer, 32, was struck and killed and at least 19 others were injured when neo-Nazi James Alex Fields Jr. rammed a crowd of counterprotesters in Charlottesville. Fields has since been sentenced to life in prison.

But its more than that single incident. According to Ari Weil, the deputy research director for the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, there were at least 72 incidents of cars driving into protesters over a relatively short span in 2020, from May 27 through July 7.

Examples arent hard to find. Theres even a Wikipedia page specifically dedicated to vehicle-ramming incidents during George Floyd protests. And as Weil explained in an interview with Voxs Alex Ward last year, theres an online environment that for years has been celebrating and encouraging these types of horrendous attacks.

Whats particularly worrisome is where those memes spread, Weil told Vox. I know of at least four cases where law enforcement officers were sharing these in Facebook groups. [Fields] shared these memes twice in two months before his attack, and other planners of the Unite the Right rally shared these, too.

According to Weil, the sort of law now on the books in Oklahoma isnt new, either. When he spoke to Vox in June, Weil said that at least six states had legislators who tried to pass bills that would protect drivers from civil suits if they hit protesters. Luckily, none of those passed.

Now, several of them have and Republicans in Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky, and elsewhere are also pushing bills that would limit protests in other ways.

Even more concerning, its not always just random people driving through protests. In several cases, police have also used their cars as weapons against protesters. In Detroit last June, an officer drove his police SUV through a crowd, sending protesters flying; two New York police officers did likewise at a Black Lives Matter protest in May 2020.

Indeed, some of these bills package protection for drivers alongside enhanced authority for law enforcement. The Iowa law, for example, eliminates liability for drivers who hit protesters, while expanding qualified immunity and increasing benefits for police officers, according to the Des Moines Register.

Though bills that would protect drivers who run over protesters are especially alarming, theyre by no means the only changes that Republicans are pushing in response to Black Lives Matter protests protests which continued this month following the police killings of Adam Toledo in Chicago, Daunte Wright in Minnesota, and MaKhia Bryant in Columbus, Ohio.

In particular, the Florida bill signed this month by DeSantis is a sprawling measure that creates new criminal penalties for protesting, among other provisions. And while it purports to address rioting DeSantis has called it the strongest anti-rioting, pro-law enforcement piece of legislation in the country the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida warned last week that the bill effectively criminalizes peaceful protest in Florida.

Ask yourself this, ACLU of Florida executive director Micah Kubic said in a statement. What problem are Gov. DeSantis and certain members of the Florida legislature trying to solve? To be clear the goal of this law is to silence dissent and create fear among Floridians who want to take to the streets to march for justice.

During his time in office, former President Donald Trump expressed support for such aggressive measures. As protests erupted after the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor last summer, Trump called on governors to quash demonstrations, and praised the National Guard for cut[ting] through demonstrations like butter in Minneapolis.

Anti-protest bills proliferated around the country during Trumps tenure in office and have continued to gain support in the early months of President Joe Bidens administration as Republican lawmakers at the state level lean even harder into a Trump-style law and order message. According to a tracker from the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, at least 30 measures restricting the right to peaceful assembly have been enacted since November 2016, while 68 more are currently pending. All told, at least 220 bills that would curb the right to protest have been introduced in 45 states since November 2016.

And in 2021 alone, International Center for Not-for-Profit Law senior legal adviser Elly Page told the New York Times last week, 81 anti-protest measures have been introduced in 34 states.

One such bill, in Kentucky, would make it a misdemeanor punishable by jail time to insult or taunt a police officer and make resisting arrest during a riot a felony offense. Both the Kentucky and Florida bills would also make it harder for protesters to post bail if arrested in certain circumstances.

Another measure, in Minnesota, would make anyone convicted of a crime at a protest ineligible for student loans and many other forms of state financial aid, including food stamps and unemployment, according to the Minnesota Daily.

Not all of those bills have a realistic chance of passing Minnesota and Kentucky, for example, both have Democratic governors, who would likely veto any such measures that reached their desks but theyre a clear indication of the broader mood of the Republican Party. Never mind that most Black Lives Matter protests have been peaceful, and never mind that George Floyd was murdered in plain sight, on video, by a police officer to Republicans, its the protests that have to be stopped.

Read the original:
In Oklahoma, Florida, and other states, Republicans are passing laws that make it easier to run over proteste - Vox.com

But Manchin doesnt want to see his friend Murkowski defeated by a Trump-endorsed Republican or a Democrat. He told POLITICO's Playbook Deep Dive podcast that he will support Murkowskis challenging reelection campaign in 2022 in a heartbeat.

Illustration by Alex Fine

I've met a lot of good people in Alaska, they know when they've got the real deal. And they see the person that basically is bringing both sides together, trying to look for the best interest, Manchin said of Murkowski in a rare joint interview. People understand that they have a person that understands Alaska and has Alaska in her blood and in every part of her veins and every morsel of her body.

Murkowski hasnt officially launched her reelection campaign but was elated to get Democratic backing: I would welcome his endorsement.

The two have a relationship dating back to essentially when Manchin entered the Senate in 2010 and Murkowski, then the top Republican on the Energy Committee, visited Manchin in West Virginia. Then as chair, Murkowski hosted Manchin in Alaska in 2019 cementing their rare bipartisan relationship.

Manchin, who also endorsed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) in her 2020 reelection race, said that I don't think we should be campaigning against any colleagues, Democrat or Republican.

He conceded most of his colleagues dont agree with him. But Murkowski hopes that with the establishment of a 20-senator strong bipartisan group, called the G20, their alliance is the start of something bigger rather than an outlier in an increasingly partisan chamber.

I would like to think that were the resurgence, that it's kind of lonely right now. But why wouldn't we want to encourage greater collaboration and cooperation among our colleagues, Murkowski. I get weary of of of that energy that is focused on the dirty, unproductive process.

Murkowski's biggest problem is from within her own party, and Trump has backed Kelly Tshibaka against her. It's unclear whether Democrats will even bother to put up a credible candidate against Murkowski, who won a write-in campaign after losing her primary in 2010. The state has also changed its elections system into a nonpartisan top-four primary that could help Murkowski blunt Tshibaka's challenge.

Read the original here:
Democrat Joe Manchin says theres one GOP senator hed endorse in a heartbeat - POLITICO

Both the top Democrat and top Republican on the panel have expressed concern about Landers nomination due to his interactions with Epstein, POLITICO has reported, while other lawmakers have questioned his past treatment of fellow female scientists and his embrace of a notable biologist accused of espousing racist and sexist views.

"The Epstein connection is of tremendous concern to us," Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said at Thursday's hearing.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), the first Thai American woman elected to Congress, said she is troubled about those incidents, as well as allegations Lander has downplayed the role female scientists played in developing breakthrough genetics technology.

The bottom line is that if confirmed you will have the authority to promote the representation of women and minorities in STEM fields, so I strongly encourage you to use this hearing as an opportunity to explain how youve learned from your past mistakes, Duckworth said.

Lander on Thursday acknowledged he understated the work of two female scientists, 2020 Nobel Prize winners Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, in a 2016 paper about the pioneers behind the landmark CRISPR gene-editing technology.

"I made a mistake, and when I make a mistake I own it and try to do better," he said in response to questions from Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.).

The controversies threaten Lander's confirmation to be OSTP director, a role that Biden is raising to the Cabinet level for the first time. Lander is the only Cabinet nominee who has yet to be confirmed.

A striking contrast: The controversy over Landers handling of issues of race and gender arrives as the Biden administration has pushed to make advancing equity in the U.S. and boosting diversity in the ranks of the federal government one of its top priorities.

Lawmakers had called on Biden to appoint a woman or person of color to the OSTP director spot and other top science roles in the executive branch, given that those demographics have traditionally been underrepresented in those positions and in STEM fields more broadly.

Hundreds of female scientists in January wrote an open letter opposing Landers nomination, which they said showed that the glass ceiling in American science remains intact.

The group applauded efforts the Biden administration has taken to boost diversity in federal office, but said the Lander pick fails to meet the moment and exemplifies the status quo.

See original here:
Democrats, Republicans press Bidens top scientist on gender, race and Epstein connection - POLITICO

The point is not to go out and incur new and additional debt, Mr. Toomey said. He rejected the Democratic push to undo key elements of the tax overhaul that Republicans muscled through in 2017, arguing that Congress would not improve the national economy by ruining the tax reform.

Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader in the House, said that he had not seen the Senate proposal, but that his conference would be preparing its own infrastructure plan. Ms. Capito said the group sent the proposal to the White House shortly before making it public.

Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia and a crucial swing vote who has said he wants any infrastructure package to be bipartisan, told reporters on Thursday that the Republican plan was basically a negotiating starting point.

But even before Republicans formally unveiled it, most other Democrats were panning the proposal.

It goes nowhere near what has to be done to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, and the funding is totally regressive and anti-working class, said Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent and chairman of the Budget Committee. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, weve got to ask the wealthy and large corporations to pay their fair share, not demand more taxes on the middle class and working families.

Mr. Biden and his team have said repeatedly that they hope to find bipartisan consensus on infrastructure this year. That includes both Mr. Bidens existing plan and his forthcoming American Families Plan, which will center on human infrastructure spending like education and child care.

White House officials say they are open to breaking those proposals into smaller pieces that could pass with 10 or more Republicans joining Democrats in the Senate. Such a compromise could start with a bipartisan bill aimed at improving American competitiveness with China, which includes $100 billion in research and development spending akin to some provisions in Mr. Bidens jobs plan. Such a slimmed-down bill could move through the Senate in the coming weeks. Some officials are also hopeful that lawmakers could pass a bipartisan highway bill, which would accomplish some of Mr. Bidens transportation goals.

But many officials view significant compromise as unlikely, and they say Mr. Biden is unlikely to be satisfied with incremental spending agreements. That is why Democrats are also preparing to move some or most of Mr. Bidens agenda through the budget reconciliation process if necessary, including his plans to combat climate change and his tax increases on corporations and high earners.

Read the original here:
Republicans Look to Slash the Size of Bidens Infrastructure Plan - The New York Times