Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Robin Hood and the evolving predation of the elite

by David Atkins

Rush Limbaugh gets frustrated:

Everybody thinks that Robin Hood was out there stealing money from the rich and taking it back and giving it to the citizens of Sherwood Forrest. Robin Hood was stealing from the Government! Robin Hood was a tea party activist. Robin Hood was Anti-Taxes! And it’s another myth that so many people misunderstand what Robin Hood is all about. And of course, the Democrats don’t care about the truth, they care about the illusion that they can carry forward, so Obama now trying to call Romney, Romneyhood, and by the way, this is not new, this is not new . . .

Now, those of us with heads on our shoulders read this with some mix of exasperation, anger and amusement. We all know Rush is ridiculous here.

But the historian in me does feel for him, just a little bit. It’s not that he’s wrong. The Robin Hood legend is deeply anti-tax. It is. But then, most progressive stories involving historical or semi-historical figures from the pre-Industrial era are, also. The American and French revolutions were both heavily anti-tax in their own ways as well.

But that’s the basis of the key conceit of the modern tea party right. In the days before representative democracies and broad middle classes, the elites served as royalty and nobility. Part of the way they funneled income from the lower classes to themselves was in the form of arbitrary taxation. Back in the olden days, elites used whimsical tax policy to steal from the 99% to fund the lavish lifestyles and wars of choice for the 1%. So Robin Hood was all about taking that money, taxed and untaxed, from the rich and giving it back to the poor. It’s also notable that wealthy church figures were not immune from the legend’s redistributive impulse.

Changing that balance of power was one of the great advances of modern representative democracy. By putting the power in the hands of an ever-broadening middle class, the power of the 1% to inflict punitive taxes to fatten their own purses was dramatically lessened. At least in theory, democracy allows for the taxed to choose the level of its own taxation and its spending priorities. Since the 1% account for only 1% of the vote, their decisions carry less weight, which forces them to be more humble and act in the best interests of everyone. Also, the middle class has the right to vote for progressive taxation to place a check on runaway theft by the 1%. That’s the theory, anyway. Of course, when global economic dynamics swamp the tax policies of nation states and the 1% are allowed to spend untold sums to buy elections, that balance of power changes immeasurably.

But from a simplistic point of view, the reforms of representative democracy turned taxation from an elitist burden on the 99% to a progressive tool of the 99%. In the olden days, the 1% eagerly used taxation on the poor to benefit themselves. Now, the 1% fear taxation above all things. Of course, the flat tax plans of Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are an attempt to reverse course and reinstitute regressive taxes. So considerable backsliding is possible.

But to say that Robin Hood was anti-tax is tell a major lie by way of a minor truth. The legend of Robin Hood was about redistributing the wealth from the super rich to the poor. Taxation was just one tool the super rich used to steal money from the very poor. But the taxes weren’t what was important. Income inequality was.

It still is.

.

It’s not the Budget Control Act of God

by digby

I just want to write a short note to answer those who are saying my insistence that the congress and the president don’t need to honor the sequester agreement is wrong. If that weren’t the case, what’s this all about?

One year after Congress approved a controversial plan to extend the nation’s debt ceiling, Republicans are stepping up their campaign to repeal a major part of the law.

The congress made the law and they can unmake it. The “fiscal cliff” is a phony construct that grew out of the Grand Bargain debt ceiling negotiations last year. Recall that this is what was produced by that process, an abortion called The Budget Control Act:

Debt limit:

The debt limit was increased by $400 billion immediately.

The President could request a further increase of $500 billion, which is subject to a congressional motion of disapproval which the President may veto, in which case a two-thirds majority in Congress would be needed to override the veto. This has been called the ‘McConnell mechanism’ after the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who first suggested it as part of another scheme.

The President could request a final increase of $1.2–1.5 trillion, subject to the same disapproval procedure. The exact amount depends on the amount of cuts in the “super committee” plan if it passes Congress, and whether a Balanced budget amendment has been passed.

Deficit reduction:

Spending was reduced more than the increase in the debt limit. No tax increases or other forms of increases in revenue above current law were included in the bill.

The bill directly specified $917 billion of cuts over 10 years in exchange the initial debt limit increase of $900 billion. This is the first installment (“tranche”) of cuts. $21 billion of this will be applied in the FY2012 budget.

Additionally, the agreement established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, sometimes called the “super committee”, to produce deficit reduction legislation by November 23, 2011, that would be immune from amendments or filibuster (similar to the Base Realignment and Closure). The goal of the legislation was to cut at least $1.5 trillion over the coming 10 years and be passed by December 23, 2011.

Projected revenue from the committee’s legislation could not exceed the revenue budgeting baseline produced by current law. (Current law has the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012.) The committee would have 12 members, 6 from each party.

The agreement also specified an incentive for Congress to act. If Congress failed to produce a deficit reduction bill with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts, then Congress could grant a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling but this would trigger across-the-board cuts (“sequestrations”[note 1]).These cuts would apply to mandatory and discretionary spending in the years 2013 to 2021 and be in an amount equal to the difference between $1.2 trillion and the amount of deficit reduction enacted from the joint committee. There would be some exemptions: reductions would apply to Medicare providers, but not to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare beneficiaries, civil and military employee pay, or veterans.

As originally envisioned, these caps would equally affect security and non-security programs. Security programs would include the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, some management functions of the intelligence community and international affairs from the U.S. State Department. However, because the Joint Select Committee did not report any legistration to Congress, the act reset these caps to defense (essentially the DOD) and non-defense categories.

This is why we have Simpson and Bowles and David Walker and Alice Rivlin and every other fiscal scold in the country is running all over Capitol Hill rending their garments that the congress simply must repeal this horrible “sequester” — and replace it with a more “balanced approach.” Like Simpson-Bowles.

The con is this: they are all acting as if the deficit targets are carved in stone and cannot be changed only the way to get there. And the Democrats are right there selling the same snake oil. Their only deal breaker is some kind of revenue in exchange for cuts, which some of the the Republicans seem to have finally begun to see is the deal of a lifetime.

After all, we already know that the desire to repeal the defense cuts is thoroughly bipartisan. Leon Panetta already gave that game away. They are being used as a negotiating tool to get recalcitrant Republicans on board with some kind of “revenue” that the Democrats can call a “win” in exchange for Simpson-Bowles level cuts. (The Tea Party faction is not inclined to give Democrats even a phony “win” but that calculation may very well be different in the lame duck.)

Regardless of whether or not its politically feasible to repeal this whole mess and start over doesn’t change the fact that it’s not the Budget Control Act of God, it’s just another law and it can be changed if there is political will to do it. Not that I have any faith that there is, mind you. I’m just saying that it’s theoretically possible.

Update: And, by the way, I was wrong to indict AARP as being part of the Peterson Catfood Bus Tour the other day. Their former CEO is on it, but the organization is doing its own bus tour, which you can read about here.

“This is how hate sounds”

by digby

NY Daily News:

Five years ago, a man named James called his father and came out to him as gay.

This week, James posted a letter he says his father sent in response that disowned his son forever to the Web forum Reddit under the heading, “This is how hate sounds.”

What a sick perversion of Jesus’ message that is.

.

Romney’s guru

by digby

I’ve been meaning to pass on a link to this Noam Scheiber profile of Romney guru Stuart Stevens for a while. It’s a fascinating look at a talented and eccentric political strategist who is probably as responsible as anyone for GOP success over the last decade. I first wrote about him back in 2005, commenting on this article about the GOP convention:

Between the production values and Zell Miller, the mix of TV gloss and stump-speech populism made for supersized propaganda… Mr. Schriefer’s partner, Stuart Stevens, assembled the seven-minute nominating film that introduced Mr. Bush on Thursday, Sept. 2. It was series of photographic stills depicting the President as a hero after the Sept. 11 attacks: his bullhorn moment at Ground Zero; running with a soldier who lost his leg; hugging a girl whose mother perished in the attacks; and his opening pitch at Yankee Stadium for the stirring post–Sept. 11 season opener-the only moving video image.

“You keep pitching, no matter what,” intoned actor and former Senator Fred Thompson, in a baritone to match Morgan Freeman’s-who narrated John Kerry’s Democratic nomination film. “You throw, and you become who you are.”

The script was by former Reagan and Bush speechwriter and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan.

After it aired, Mr. Bush appeared magically-speaking of David Copperfield!-onstage, passing through two sliding video screens with American flags on them, and walked down the runway to the circular dais, which effectively became his pitcher’s mound.

“Sort of like a performance piece or something,” said Mr. Stevens. “Like the Academy Awards.”

I highly recommend Scheiber’s profile of this guy. He’s been around a long time, worked with all the GOP luminaries but he’s not a true modern Republican. Like his boss Mitt Romney, he doesn’t understand the hardcore nature of the right wing:

Unfortunately for Romney, his chief strategist isn’t much better at navigating the minefield on the right. Stevens’s signature approach to dealing with conservatives is to slog through the primaries while conceding as little to them as possible. In 2007, he briefly worked on John McCain’s campaign for president. At the time, McCain was the moderate and Romney was challenging him from the right. Stevens urged McCain to go relentlessly negative—“you have to keep your foot on his throat” was his mantra. The idea was to solve McCain’s problem with his base by eliminating the conservative threat. But the McCain brain trust was perplexed. “The base’s concerns with John had nothing to do with Romney,” said one McCain aide. “It didn’t make logical sense to us.”

In 2012, Stevens sought to reprise the attack strategy for Romney, except with an added wrinkle. Rather than simply knee-cap his conservative rivals, Romney would also channel the country’s frustration with Obama. This would appeal to the base, which considered the president illegitimate, without alienating general election voters, who considered Obama’s economic policies a failure. Romney could capture the nomination without moving rightward. He wouldn’t even have to renounce his own health care plan so long as he was sufficiently scathing toward Obamacare.

Somewhat unusually for a presidential candidate, Romney has been deeply involved in hashing out his own campaign strategy. “Romney plays a big role in the strategic direction,” says one Romney aide. “Stuart is the artiste.” And Romney liked what he heard. He was especially hesitant to abandon his health care record and was heartened that Stevens urged him not to.

Except the base doesn’t like the “art” he’s putting out:

The problem was that the plan badly underestimated the fever on the right. “I don’t think [Stevens] understands the base at all,” says the McCain aide. “He tends to take [the base] for granted. … There’s no art to what they’re doing.”

And guess what?

A Mitt Romney spokesperson offered an unusual counterattack Tuesday to an ad in which a laid-off steelworker blames the presumptive GOP nominee for his family losing health care: If that family had lived in Massachusetts, it would have been covered by the former governor’s universal health care law.

“To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” Andrea Saul, Romney’s campaign press secretary, said during an appearance on Fox News. “There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President [Barack] Obama’s economy.”

Erick Erickson immediately melted down like the wicked witch of the west:

Judging from Romney’s actions so far I’d imagine we’ll see them disavow this in some way by the end of the day. There are already calls for this woman’s firing. But if that profile is correct, if they want to get to the source of their trouble, they’re going to have to fire the candidate too.

.

You Have To Start Somewhere

By tristero

Reading the horrific stories in this article, I came away more convinced that, while far from ideal, one tiny first step towards tackling America’s eating disorder is to support Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to ban large soda portions. Yes, I would prefer a soda tax, but that is not feasible.

Will a large-soda-size ban in NYC help people in Appalachia in any substantive way? Not immediately, but it will start to turn the national discourse away from the conclusion that “nothing can be done” towards the notion that something must be done.

Note to those opposed to the Bloomberg ban: it is very easy to complain about the problems with it – and everyone probably agrees with you. But given the epidemic of purely-preventable, diet-related diseases, what would you propose instead as a practical, plausible, feasible, easily implemented and practical first step? I’m not asking you to “solve” the national eating disorder. I’m asking very specifically for your thoughts as to what, if not a ban on large sodas, would be a reasonable and practical first step towards addressing the problem.

I would happily abandon my support for the Bloomberg proposal if there is a better and more practical idea. But education doesn’t work. Better food industry regulation will take years and years of vicious fights that few politicians have an interest in waging. And a soda tax simply is impossible in the current political climate.

Extra points if the idea you propose has actually been tried somewhere and shown to work.

Cruel but brilliant

by David Atkins

In case you missed it, this piece from The Onion was one of their best ever:

A survey released Wednesday by researchers at the University of North Carolina found that despite the many challenges they face, the nation’s lowest-income individuals are nonetheless thankful they don’t have to endure the unique hardships of the nation’s long-suffering middle class.

According to the report, the 46 million Americans who fall below the federal poverty line, though struggling mightily, are at least glad they don’t have to live up to some rapidly vanishing American dream of advancing in their career, making more money, and improving their lifestyle, the way their middle-income counterparts do.

“The unrealistic expectations and false hope they experience must be unbearable,” Camden, NJ hotel clerk Allison Jacobsen told researchers, noting that while her $22,000 annual salary barely covers her rent and groceries each month, at least she doesn’t operate under the flawed assumption that her situation will ever improve. “A life spent constantly stressing out over a dead-end job or struggling to pay off a fixed 30-year mortgage on a continuously depreciating three-bedroom townhouse? It’s horrific.”

…

“I can’t even fathom what it would be like to drag yourself to work every morning actually believing that someday it will all pay off,” said Bronx, NY substitute teacher David McGrath, who along with his wife and 2-year-old son survives on food stamps. “Or to practically kill yourself for a job promotion or meager raise while under the delusion that you can work your way to the top. People waste the best years of their life doing that, and it’s a goddamn tragedy.”

…

Researchers also found that people who were once part of the nation’s middle class experience a profound sense of relief upon moving down the country’s socioeconomic ladder and finding themselves on the bottom rung.

“Honestly, I can’t tell you how much better I feel these days,” said 42-year-old former IT technician Ryan Tunnicliffe, who last April lost his job and, subsequently, his house. “Just knowing I no longer have to strive for something completely and utterly out of reach is such a load off my mind.”

“I’m poor, and I’m going to stay poor,” Tunnicliffe continued while staring at his $320 weekly unemployment check. “It’s been very liberating.”

Reached for comment, several members of the nation’s upper class said they are “equally grateful” to have been spared the hardships of the middle class.

All dark comedy aside, this feeling is all too real. The left and right have dealt with it in different ways. Part of the left has re-adopted the “small/simple is beautiful” ethic as a way of dealing of loss of standard of living, while part of the right has eagerly embraced hardship and humiliation as a moral or religious test in service of the rightful, hierarchical order of things.

But most people who aren’t on the activist edges aren’t so keen to rationalize away and embrace that slow decline into lower expectations. They get angry. They’re going to blame someone year after year until it gets better, or until there is a violent breakdown. The only question is when it will happen–and who will get the blame.

.

Rogue Justice

by digby

Dday writes:

The Supreme Court justices have jurisdiction over various regions of the country when it comes to injunctions, particularly when it comes to stays of execution. In the case of Marvin Wilson, the mentally retarded man with an IQ of 61 and an intelligence level of a 6 year-old, set to die today in Texas in conjunction with a murder conviction, that appeal had to go through none other than Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Scalia wrote a dissent in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, which established the ban on executing the mentally retarded (Texas, like other states, got to set their own standards for what constitutes “retarded,” and as such plowed ahead with the execution of Wilson today). Scalia wrote that, because “Only the severely or profoundly mentally retarded, commonly known as ‘idiots’, enjoyed any special status under the law” in 1791, around the time of the establishment of the Eighth Amendment, he disagreed with the ruling. And so it should come as no surprise that he submitted this short response to the stay of Marvin Wilson today.

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Well of course he did. Unless we can find a medium to channel the founders and get a precise meaning of the word “idiot” there’s nothing he can do. (I have a sneaking suspicion that if we could, he wouldn’t like the answer.)

In fact, he’s proud of it:

I can imagine that Perry and Scalia will both toast to their respective kills tonight, proud as can be.

*By the way: is there a good reason why there isn’t an impeach Scalia movement? Even a tiny one?

Update: This was not decided by Scalia, but by the whole court. They pretty much nullified their own decision.

.

Kabuki on acid

by digby

I don’t know how this will end up, but it sure looks like they’re getting their ducks in a row for some sort of Lame Duck Grand Bargain. With virtually every liberal in the universe giddy with excitement at the prospect of “winning” by getting fabulously wealthy people to throw in tip money in exchange for agreeing to begin the process of cutting the monthly stipend for 90 year old ladies, it looks like we’re gonna have ourselves a deal:

The very real possibility that defense programs will suffer deep, across the board spending cuts early next year has major defense contractors and their allies making an unusual plea to members of Congress: Put everything on the table to avoid the so-called sequester — including higher taxes.

That might not sound like an extraordinary ask. But it’s typical for incumbent interests to leave all questions of ways and means to Congress. And given the defense industry’s enormous power and historic alignment with the GOP, it could have enough force to finally break the GOP of its anti-tax absolutism.
[…]
“Compromise will be necessary to avoid sequestration,” NAGC’s VP for communications Simon Brody said in a statement to TPM. “Considering whether to increase revenues or make funding cuts will require careful consideration by legislators, but examining all alternatives is certainly preferable to letting sweeping automatic cuts take effect.”

That’s a real break with the prevailing GOP insistence that higher taxes must not be part of any plan to avoid the sequester. And it’s the rift Rep. Andrews was hoping to expose in his line of questioning.

“I was very pleased with that answer,” Andrews told TPM in a hallway interview Thursday. “I think the defense leaders have been really public spirited and open-minded about this, and I think they’re acting very responsibly and I trust and hope that they will speak favorably about a balanced approach that includes revenue and spending cuts that neither side wants but that will avoid the sequester and reduce the deficit.”

Andrew’s said he’s had private discussions with other senior defense executives who shared the same view, but declined to provide further details.

“I do think you’re going to see a coalition of responsible people emerge — unfortunately it’s going to be in the lame duck, not prior — that’s going to support entitlement support[cuts] that Democrats don’t want, revenue increases that Republicans don’t want, but deficit reduction that everybody wants, without mindless, across the board cuts in programs.”

Early indications support that view. A group of Republicans led by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have proposed staving off or eliminating the sequester with a package that could include revenue from higher service fees and tax loophole closures, but not from rate increases.

Oooh, that’s quite the sacrifice. Be sure to clap much, much louder that you ever have before when it happens.

And once again, keep in mind that this alleged “necessity” to cut trillions from the budget is completely arbitrary. It wasn’t sent down from Mt Sinai or written into the constitution. It’s a thuggish demand that the wingnuts made during the debt ceiling talks last summer and they could easily just pass a bill negating the sequester and, assuming the president would sign it, start all over. This is the most elaborate kabuki I’ve ever seen … and I’ve seen some kabuki.

.

An efficient way to help elect some progressive Democrats

by David Atkins

Very rarely do I make a personal plea for help. It’s not easy for me: I hate asking for things from people. But this is really important.

A few years ago I decided to follow Howard Dean’s advice and get involved in making my local Democratic Party a more progressive place. One thing led to another, and on July 24th I was elected Chairman of the Ventura County Democratic Party after serving for two years as a vice chair. As it turns out, I’ve taken the helm at an extraordinary time when Ventura County (just northwest of Los Angeles County) is nationally watched and going to have a dramatic impact on national politics.

Unfortunately, most even political people don’t pay much attention to their local county parties. They’re seen as dull backwaters where people focus on silly things and get together for coffee. Or worse, establishment centers that negate progressive power. But in this case nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I can guarantee that there is nowhere in the country that your money could be put to better use than right here to elect progressive candidates and support progressive causes. I really mean that. Why?

Because right here in Ventura County, we have three hotly contested, nationally watched races for Congress, two huge State Senate races that may make the the difference between whether we get single-payer healthcare in California or not, a potentially close Assembly race, and our part in defeating one of the most damaging laws to ever hit organized labor. To win all these races, Ventura County Democrats will need to make at least 100,000 voter contacts throughout the County spread out across allof them. But we can’t do it without YOUR help.

Keep in mind that we have no paid staff, so literally every single dollar will go directly into the resources needed to make the phone calls and knock on the doors. So what are the races? Let’s start with:

Congress:

• CA-26: Progressive Democratic Assemblymember Julia Brownley will be going up against oil, tobacco and insurance Tea Party State Senator Tony Strickland. Julia Brownley is one of the best we have in the entire state, and this race is an epic showdown between one of the more conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats in the state. Right now Julia has a slim lead in the polls, and voter turnout will make all the difference. Your help in turning out the vote will be crucial here.
• CA-24: Another hugely watched, tight contest between Democratc Congresswoman Lois Capps and tax cheat/Republican-in-moderate’s-clothing Abel Maldonado. As in CA-24, the Democrat has a slim lead and voter turnout will be crucial to success. Again, your help could make the difference.
• CA-25: Blue America-endorsed Democrat Lee Rogers is fighting an uphill but winnable battle against the incredibly corrupt Republican Buck McKeon. Normally this wouldn’t be a high-level contest, but McKeon’s corruption could turn this seat blue for a great candidate in Lee Rogers. Again, turnout will the issue.

State Senate:

• SD19: Currently “represented” by the same execrable Republican Tony Strickland who is running for Congress and narrowly won by less than 900 votes in 2008, this district has been redrawn in a much more favorable light for Democrats. Hard-working progressive Hannah-Beth Jackson is running here again, and leads Republican Mike Stoker by a decent margin. This is a pickup opportunity in the California State Senate, where single-payer healthcare fell just two votes in the State Senate short of passage. That’s a very big deal.
• SD27: Senator Fran Pavley is up for re-election against formidable Republican Todd Zink in a much more difficult district than she has dealt with in the past. Fran is well-liked in local progressive circles, and holding her seat is a must if we want to pass progressive budgets and enact single-payer healthcare in California.

And, of course, we also have to stop Proposition 32, the most dangerous threat to organized labor in the country this side of Scott Walker. Every single dollar you can spare for the Democrats in Ventura will go toward making phone calls and knocking on doors, and sending out literature on behalf of these crucially important races. There is no better return on donor investment in the country right now for electing progressive candidates and advancing progressive causes at the same time. Please help if you can, and we can help turn the tide in California and across the country. It starts here:

Volunteers at the Ventura County Democratic HQ phonebank this June.

Thanks so much!

.

He was running for president for Pete’s sake!

by digby

A while back the Romney campaign filed a complaint in Virginia over a voter registration group’s methods. The complaint was rejected when the group agreed to alter its practices and it’s all good. But this comment by the Romney campaign caught my eye:

“The Romney campaign supports efforts by private groups to register all those who are eligible to vote. Such organizations must take responsibility to ensure that they conform to the letter and spirit of the law. Unfortunately, the Voter Participation Center’s conduct has not met this standard to date.“ Romney Campaign Spokesperson Amanda Henneberg

Hmmm. I could easily paraphrase that in this way:

Everyone supports efforts by private citizens to save money for their retirement through Individual Retirement Accounts. Such citizens must take responsibility to ensure that they conform to the letter and the spirit of the law. Unfortunately, it appears that Mitt Romney’s conduct has not met that standard to date (since the law was never intended to serve as a tax shelter for hundred million dollar fortunes.)

These people only seem to honor the spirit of the law when it doesn’t interfere with their vast wealth. When it comes to that you’re a chump if you leave even one penny on the table, no matter how filthy rich you are — or even if you want to be president of a country in which you are a card carrying member of the 001%.

This is not adhering to the spirit of the law:

“If you say to your tax people, as he seems to have done, ‘I want every trick in the book. I want to push this to the edge,'” Rattner said during an appearance on “Fareed Zakaria GPS” on CNN. “I will tell you that as a private equity guy, I’m familiar with many of the things that he did. And I know many people who have done many of the things that he did. I do not know anyone who did everything that he did.”

“Some of what he did, like the IRA, I have asked fellow private equity guys,” Rattner said, referencing the account in which Romney has stored up to $100 million tax-free. “None of us had even known this was a possible trick, if you will. He has pushed the envelope all the way to the edge, to his benefit, and I think that Americans would find that pretty distasteful.”

You would think that the man would have had enough respect for the process of running for the presidency, his Party and the people of this country to tell his tax lawyers, “no tricks, no fancy tax avoidance, I’m running for president for Pete’s sake.“

This is what he did say:

I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president.

That’s the philosophy of the 1% — you’re a sucker if you abide by the spirit of the law. At least when it comes to money. Even if you’re running for president. Especially if you’re running for president.

.