A man of smoke and mirrors
That said, the story that Mr. Trump hasn't paid much in income taxes in like forever raises some red flags. Combined with evidence from the past and observations astute Trump-watchers have made over the years, even if it's not conclusive, the pattern revealed in the NYT story collaborates the conclusion many reached long ago: that despite all the PR, President Trump is not and never has been a good businessman, or an astute maker of deals, or a shrewd financial wizard.
Some of us questioned his carefully-honed image four years ago. What was public about his personal finances did not inspire confidence that the reality of Mr. Trump's financial empire resembled its reputation. He is famous for building huge financial endeavors out of massive debt. That's a volatile pattern. Literally every business he'd ever run had gone into bankruptcy, and the claim has been made that he'd be wealthier than he claims to be if he'd just invested his inheritance in the stock market.
But we know more of the details after. the New York Times got ahold of the tax returns Mr. Trump refuses to release and published a summary the other day, together with some conclusions which cast further doubt on the president's vaunted business acumen.
At the same time, there's only a limited amount that income tax returns can reveal. It can show amounts of money, deductions, and so forth, but there's a great deal that creative accounting- both legal and otherwise- can obscure. It should be emphasized once again that one should be wary of drawing conclusions solely on the basis of the small amount of information contained in the NYT story.
But at first glance, it appears that Donald Trump, the multi-billionaire, the wheeler and dealer, seems on the verge of financial disaster. He has $800 million in loans he's personally guaranteed coming due. He paid a whopping $750 each year- no zeros omitted- in taxes for 2016 and 2017, and no Federal taxes whatsoever for 11 of the 18 years for which Times examined. And no, Trumpworld. It is by no means clear that he was able to achieve this by being smart and taking advantage of legal loopholes, though doubtless, he did a great deal of that= enough to cause the IRS to audit him. As I mentioned earlier, depreciation of assets is a legitimate business expense and can add up. But at the same time, the story raises the suspicion that he paid so little in taxes by claiming actual and massive business losses.
The "conservative" financial "wizard" who opposes free trade, regards the rule of law and the Bill of Rights with authoritarian disdain, apparently never met a dictator he didn't like, and seems to be almost completely unacquainted with Constitution and American history seems not necessarily to be a financial wizard after all. Or, necessarily, a billionaire, for that matter. Like so much about the man (including most of his alleged accomplishments in office), his personal fortune may largely be a matter of smoke and mirrors.
But he is very, very good at smoke and mirrors. He has sold a large percentage of the American public a healthy dose of snake oil, combining a carefully- and skillfully-crafted image as a smart businessman with an appeal to disenfranchised and largely low-information voters, even espousing popular conspiracy theories, telling them what they want to hear- and putting them into a position in which they identify themselves so closely with him that they refuse to entertain any evidence that reflects badly on him, or even that indicates that he might be wrong about something. As he said early in his campaign four years ago, he could shoot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes. It seemed not to occur to his base that he was insulting them and portraying them as mindless sheep. It may also have been a bit of an exaggeration; he probably would have lost a few votes.
By and large, his base won't accept implications of the story in the Times, either. They will either dismiss it out of hand as "fake news," the way he himself has, or find some excuse for him. To a point, this is justifiable; all the NYT story does is raise suspicions that Mr. Trump's largely debt-generated financial edifice may largely be composed of Hollywood-style, propped-up building front scenery rather than three-dimensional brick and mortar. But the question remains: why has Mr. Trump- who has managed to interweave his personal and business finances in a bewilderingly complex, Byzantine web which doesn't exactly reek of transparency in any case- chosen to be so secretive, and specifically the real reason why he has been so secretive about those income tax returns.
Whether now or after he leaves office, those returns will not only become public but be thoroughly investigated. Once he no longer has the protections afforded by his office, we can rest assured that the Trump financial empire and the man's personal finances will be examined in a degree of detail very few of us can imagine. Every arcane twist and turn will be followed. It's hard to imagine that we won't know for certain why he's been refusing to release his income tax returns all this time. The president who refuses to be accountable for anything won't be able to avoid being accountable once he's out of office. One thing, though know even now that being under audit has nothing to do with it.
He will be called to account. The smoke will be blown away, the mirrors removed, and after all these years the real story of Donald Trump will be known. The Donald Trump history will know won't be nearly the illusion Mr. Trump has struggled to build and maintain all these decades, and while it's too much to hope for that the dizzying spin which has always accompanied any discussion of the man, pro or con, will disappear, a great deal will be plain which he has struggled mightily over the years to obscure.
The man who has such disdain for "losers" and "suckers" may well turn out to be a loser himself. We already know that like all idols, he has feet of clay, and the day will come that it will be impossible to deny that he played a great many good people who deserved far better as suckers.
The presidency is a legal protection that will not last forever. Whether there is anything actively incriminating in those returns, we don't know. But we will. And whether he becomes the first former president to go to prison or not, the mirrors will crack and the smoke will dissipate, and history will see Donald Trump for who he actually is.
ADDENDUM: And as the experts point out, Mr. Trump's level of debt is a national security concern.
You know, I hesitated about including these two tweets. But they're a perfect illustration of why- even if Donald Trump's finances are completely on the up-and-up and there is nothing going on that we should worry about- it's absolutely vital that the finances of the President of the United States be as transparent as crystal.
We have to know that the guy who has access to every secret the United States hasn't been compromised. Frankly, Mr. Trump's bizarre and erratic foreign policy- especially his inexplicable attitude toward Russia and Vladimir Putin- makes this reaction inevitable.
Before considering this mudslinging, ask yourself what in the world Mr. Trump expects people to think given all the secrecy with which he surrounds his finances. He is inviting this response. It's a perfectly reasonable response. And if nothing else, Mr. Trump needs to accept responsibility for having put himself in a position in which it's inevitable that it should come.
If it's unfair, Donald Trump has nobody to blame but himself.
So naturally- as usual- his response would doubtless be to whine about how he's being picked on and blame the tweeters for a reaction that isn't as understandable as it is inevitable.
ADDENDUM: Or, on the other hand, maybe Mr. Trump's financial situation isn't as desperate as the Times story makes it sound.
Experts say that he has some pretty impressive resources for dealing with even a humungous debt load.
Maybe he isn't in hock to the Russians.
Maybe he just likes authoritarians like Putin.
Comments