The Apollo Documents the Making (and Breaking) of Many an Entertainer

The Apollo. HBO.  Wednesday, November 6, 9 p.m.

Stand-up comedian Moms Mabley has just come on stage, meandering through the setup to an innocuous joke, when a film clip suddenly flashes behind her: a bedraggled black man racing just ahead of three billyclub-swinging white cops.  The crowd roars with laughter as Mabley helplessly throws up her hands and innocently asks: “Did I say something funny?”

So it went at Harlem’s Apollo Theater, for four decades the 20th century’s greatest showplace for and birthing ground of black entertainment.

From its birth in the mid-1930s to its abrupt decline in 1970s in the face of Harlem’s drug-crime problems and the changing economic model of the entertainment business, the Apollo was king.

From Lena Horn to Lauryn Hill, from Bojangles Robinson to Jimi Hendrix, everybody who was anybody in black show business played the Apollo. And now Oscar-winning filmmaker Roger Ross Williams (Music by Prudence) has captured the excitement in an HBO documentary, The Apollo.

Actually, the Apollo has a storied past in white entertainment, too, hosting everybody from Buddy Holly to Guns N’ Roses.  (Even Bernie Sanders got into the act a couple of years ago.) And there was always a substantial number of white faces out in the audience as well.

But in a world where black entertainers were mostly restricted to the rough-and-tumble little venues of the so-called Chitlin’ Circuit (booked mainly by TOBA, the Theater Owners Booking Associations, a.k.a. “Tough On Black Actors”) and black audiences were largely excluded from even Harlem venues like the Cotton Club, it was the African-American side of the Apollo that was a cultural landmark.

James Brown’s 1962 album Live at the Apollo got hardly a minute of white radio airplay but spent 66 weeks on the Billboard charts and turned him into a national sensation.  (Later Brown would introduce his anthemic “Say It Loud, I’m Black And I’m Proud” on the Apollo stage. ) Ella Fitzgerald gave her first performance there, Michael Jackson his last. When black audiences turned against Earth Kitt after her marriage to a white real-estate developer, she won them back with a smokingly sensuous dance routine at the Apollo.

Filmmaker Williams had access to a wide variety of Apollo film archives, and used it well in making his documentary, weaving seemingly disconnected incidents into narrative chapters.

One of the most interesting stems from the Apollo’s willingness to book small-time and unpolished acts into a top venue. (The Apollo even had a weekly amateur night where infamously brutal audiences would vote with catcalls, jeers and, occasionally, applause about whether performers would get a regular spot.) Many Apollo first-timers were getting a harsh introduction to show business.

Smoky Robinson recalls the furious reaction of the Apollo house band when he showed up without written arrangements of his songs that regular Motown musicians played from memory.  Another artist on the bill that night, Ray Charles, had to create arrangements on the spot while listening to Robinson play his tunes on the piano.

And Gladys Knight and the Pips recount an even ruder introduction. They arrived for their appearance, did a few songs, and then headed to the dressing room to pack their bags. “Where are you going?” asked an Apollo stagehand. “You’ve got three more shows to do.”

Yet many a harsh first night blossomed into a glorious career.  Ella Fitzgerald walked into one of the first Apollo amateur nights in 1934 thinking she was a pretty fair dancer. But the act before hers was a sizzling pair of tap-dancers, the Edwards Sisters, or as Fitzgerald called them, “the gassingest dancers in the world … No way I’m going out there to try to dance.”

Instead, she tried singing a song from an old Connee Boswell record of her mother’s called “Judy. The audience, tentatively, clapped, and Fitzgerald’s dancing career was over. Forty million records later, it seems the Apollo audience got it right.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/328tmQX
via IFTTT

US vs China: Unstoppable Force Vs Immovable Objection

US vs China: Unstoppable Force Vs Immovable Objection

Submitted by Michael Every of Rabobank,

Markets were rocked yesterday by further bad news on the trade front. Not only is the APEC venue not available for Trump and Xi to meet, but according to a news report senior Chinese officials have little faith in the US sticking to any deal, have literally no appetite for the large up-front agri purchases that the US is insisting on, and are refusing to contemplate any immediate start on a ‘phase 2’ deal without the States removing tariffs – which isn’t going to happen.

All in all one could almost make the argument that this is case of unstoppable force (the US) vs. unmoveable objection (China), and hence a real trade deal can’t be done. Of course, we have made exactly that projection since before the trade war even started. Indeed, we aren’t compelled to change that view despite both Larry Kudlow and Chinese officials scrambling to let the world press (meaning stock markets) know that the two sides are close to agreement, really.

Do they actually agree? Yes – on their irreconcilable differences. Now just isn’t the time to advertise that agreement to disagree too loudly: but supply chains will keep moving anyway. Consider that US Secretary of State Pompeo and Vice President Pence have both made clear from the US side that China must reform or decoupling, even if undesirable, looms: Pompeo openly talked about “confronting the Chinese Communist Party”. For its part, the Chinese Communist Party’s fourth plenum this week announced “national security” and “rising risks” were the immediate priority, not reforms of the economy.

Meanwhile, politics was again in force as the US House of Representatives officially voted to open impeachment procedures against Trump. From now on depositions will have to take place in public, and there will be a wider range of witnesses called, and far greater Republican involvement. As a result, expect the headlines to get even more colourful than they have been so far; expect nobody to emerge looking very good; and also expect formal impeachment in the House on strictly party lines, which opens up a trial in the Senate. However, don’t expect much focus on the substantive detail of the facts because this all about bare-knuckle politics, and the switchblade issue of quis custodiet iposos custodes; don’t expect the Republican-majority Senate will also impeach Trump to remove him from office, because while it’s possible it’s still the far less likely proposition; and don’t expect Trump won’t run for re-election in November 2020 anyway even if he is impeached or removed from office. Unstoppable forces are unstoppable, just as immovable objections are immovable.

Trump is also wasting no time getting involved in another foreign country, announcing that a BoJo – Farage electoral team-up in the UK would be “an unstoppable force”. Of course, it would make a huge difference to the Tories’ uncertain electoral prospects given the likely loss of some seats to the Remain Lib Dems and others to Scottish nationalists, and hence to what shape Brexit would then take. However, in what is going to be the most uncertain election in UK history there will be many who have an immovable objection to Trump saying what he did – and also that Labour leader Corbyn would be ”so bad for the UK.” It simply isn’t acceptable for foreign leaders to make comments about desired outcomes in other countries’ elections – except when it is the US, when the whole world joins in (which is allegedly why we are where we are on impeachment).

Note that special judgmental role is instead reserved for financial markets: where and while they still can, they get to show who they think would be “so bad” or “so good” for a country.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 11/01/2019 – 15:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34oX6dA Tyler Durden

Podcast on Federalism and Sanctuary Cities

Earlier this week, Prof. Brian Frye of the University of Kentucky College of Law interviewed me about the issue of federalism and sanctuary cities, going over the last two years of sanctuary litigation and its significance for constitutional federalism. The podcast, which is part of his “Ipse Dixit” series of interviews, is available here.

The interview addresses issues covered in more detail in my recent Texas Law Review article on Trump-era sanctuary jurisdiction litigation. We also touched on the question of whether the fight over sanctuary cities is evidence of a change in liberal attitudes towards federalism, a subject I considered in a Washington Post Outlook article in July, as well as in the last part of the Texas Law Review piece. Recently, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review part of the lower court ruling against its position in the California “sanctuary state” case. I wrote about that development here, and it is also discussed in the podcast.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JHkUl6
via IFTTT

President Trump Has Plans To Go To UFC 244 On Saturday Night

President Trump Has Plans To Go To UFC 244 On Saturday Night

President Trump will be steering clear of one vicious fight in Washington D.C. to attend another in New York City this weekend.

The President is expected to attend UFC 244 this weekend, according to Bloomberg. The event is being headlined by welterweights Jorge Masvidal and Nate Diaz, who is coming off of a massive unanimous decision win against Anthony Pettis back in mid-August. 

And it’s not Trump’s first foray into mixed martial arts, either.

He hosted two major MMA events in 2001 at Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City and, in 2016, UFC President Dana White endorsed the Trump campaign and spoke in support of him at the Republican National Convention.

About 10 years ago, Trump even backed Affliction Entertainment, which attempted (and failed) to become a potential UFC competitor. 

Trump’s weekend plans will likely be a much needed break from the continued impeachment circus that the Democrats have drummed up in Washington D.C. The President is expected to stay at Trump Tower over the weekend, which could cause significant congestion in Manhattan over the weekend.

Trump has publicly commented that he dislikes coming back to Manhattan because of the trouble they cause the city. “I hate to see the New Yorkers with streets closed,” he said in 2017.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 11/01/2019 – 14:45

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/338kxYE Tyler Durden

Podcast on Federalism and Sanctuary Cities

Earlier this week, Prof. Brian Frye of the University of Kentucky College of Law interviewed me about the issue of federalism and sanctuary cities, going over the last two years of sanctuary litigation and its significance for constitutional federalism. The podcast, which is part of his “Ipse Dixit” series of interviews, is available here.

The interview addresses issues covered in more detail in my recent Texas Law Review article on Trump-era sanctuary jurisdiction litigation. We also touched on the question of whether the fight over sanctuary cities is evidence of a change in liberal attitudes towards federalism, a subject I considered in a Washington Post Outlook article in July, as well as in the last part of the Texas Law Review piece. Recently, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review part of the lower court ruling against its position in the California “sanctuary state” case. I wrote about that development here, and it is also discussed in the podcast.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JHkUl6
via IFTTT

More Bad Economic Numbers Put Huge Dent In Economic Optimists’ Case

More Bad Economic Numbers Put Huge Dent In Economic Optimists’ Case

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

For a long time, people have been trying to tell me that the U.S. economy is headed for a new golden era. They insist that the U.S. will be more powerful and more respected than ever before, and that we will see unprecedented prosperity in this nation.

But despite extremely wild spending by the U.S. government and exceedingly irresponsible intervention by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. economy has not even had a “good” year in ages. As I have pointed out numerous times, we have not had a year when U.S. GDP grew by at least 3 percent since the middle of the Bush administration, and that makes this the longest stretch of low growth in all of U.S. history by a very wide margin. Many believe that brighter days may still be ahead, but all of the economic numbers that we have been getting in recent months make it abundantly clear that a new economic slowdown has begun. I shared 14 of those numbers earlier this week, and I will share some brand new ones with you today.

Source: Bloomberg

Let’s start by taking a look at how U.S. consumers are faring. U.S. consumer confidence has now fallen for 3 months in a row, and this week we learned that the Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index has just fallen at the fastest pace in more than 8 years

U.S. consumer comfort suffered its biggest weekly decline in more than eight years on a pullback in Americans’ assessments of the economy, personal finances and the buying climate, possibly signaling more moderate household spending approaching the holiday-shopping season.

The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index fell 2.4 points, the most since March 2011, to 61 in the week ended Oct. 27.

How in the world can anyone possibly claim that we have a “booming economy” after reading that?

We also just got another depressingly bad manufacturing number. Experts were expecting a reading of 48.3 for the Chicago Purchasing Management Index, but instead it came in at just 43.2

The Chicago Purchasing Management Index sank to 43.2 in October from 47.1 in the prior month. This is the lowest level since December 2015. Economists has expected a reading of 48.3, according to Econoday.

Any reading below 50 indicates deteriorating conditions.

We were promised a “manufacturing renaissance”, but instead manufacturing is now the smallest share of the U.S. economy that it has been in 72 years.

That is terrible.

Manufacturing traditionally provides good paying jobs, and as I pointed out the other day, U.S. business hiring has now declined to the lowest level in 7 years.

But at least we have plenty of government jobs, eh?

In the private sector, things are getting really tough, and we are starting to see lots of big companies lay off workers.

For example, Molson Coors just announced that they will be laying off up to 500 workers as they desperately search for a way to survive in this difficult economic environment…

To further drive efficiency and enable growth, Molson Coors is consolidating and reorganizing office locations. The Denver office will be closed and Chicago will be designated as the North American operational headquarters. Functional support roles currently housed in several offices around the country will now be based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

As a result, we expect to reduce employment levels by approximately 400 to 500 employees as part of this restructuring, primarily in our existing United States, Canada and International reporting segments, as well as Corporate.

You know that things are getting tough when even beer companies start laying people off.

Of course the “retail apocalypse” continues to escalate, and we just learned that Forever 21 will be closing most of their stores and laying off most of their employees

More than 100 Forever 21 stores are slated to close as part of the fashion retailer’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection case, according to court documents filed this week.

The family-owned company, which has about 32,800 employees, said it would close “most” of its stores in Asia and Europe and up to 178 stores in the U.S. when it filed for protection Sept. 29.

A similar scenario is playing out for Dressbarn. According to USA Today, all of their 544 stores “will close no later than Dec. 26″…

Liquidation sales at the remaining Dressbarn stores will start Friday, the struggling retailer announced Wednesday.

While the 544 stores will close no later than Dec. 26, the women’s clothing website is expected to relaunch in 2020 with a new owner, the company said in a news release.

It has been hoped that a limited trade agreement with China might bolster the economy at least temporarily, but now we are learning that Chinese officials expect “phase one” of the deal to “soon fall apart”. According to CNN, the Chinese are pessimistic that our two countries will ever be able to “reach a full trade deal”…

Chinese officials have expressed doubts about whether the world’s two largest economies can reach a full trade deal, Bloomberg reported. That is casting a long shadow over the “phase one” agreement that the countries reached earlier in October.

This is consistent with my warnings from previous articles. The Chinese wanted the Trump administration to stop the implementation of any more tariffs, and they were able to achieve that with “phase one”. But in order to move forward with “phase two”, the Chinese are going to insist on the removal of all tariffs

According to BBG’s sources, this is the bare minimum that Beijing would accept to move ahead with Phase 1: a commitment from the Americans to removing tariffs in Phase 2, and agreeing to cancel the next round of tariffs, set to take effect in December.

This is something that the Trump administration will never agree to, and so that puts us back where we originally started.

The Chinese will continue to “negotiate”, but only for stalling purposes.

There is only about a year left until the 2020 elections, and the Chinese are hoping to run out the clock on the Trump administration with as little disruption to their own economy as possible.

Unfortunately for the Chinese, Trump could possibly win another term, and if either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders win they could potentially be even tougher on trade with China.

In any event, we should not expect a comprehensive trade deal with China any time soon, and that is really bad news for the economic optimists.

Of course the truth is that everything that I have just shared is bad news for all of us. The U.S. economy is seriously deteriorating, and things are only going to get worse in the months ahead.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 11/01/2019 – 14:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/328lZsL Tyler Durden

Kentucky Printer Wins Fight To Refuse To Print Pro-LGBT Shirts

A Kentucky printer has won a fight over whether it can be forced to print t-shirts for a local LGBT group. It won on a technicality that doesn’t address the underlying conflict, so more lawsuits over the issue may be on their way. But one judge on the court made it clear that such suits are not likely to succeed.

The case goes back to 2012, when a Lexington-based print shop named Hands On Originals declined to print t-shirts for the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO), for an upcoming pride festival. The owners of Hands On say they will not print messages for customers that go against their religious beliefs, and their website highlights their Christianity as part of their marketing.

The group got its t-shirts elsewhere, but it also filed a complaint with the Lexington-Urban County Human Rights Commission arguing that Hands On discriminated against it because of its members sexual orientation. Hands On responded that it wasn’t discriminating against gay customers but was simply refusing to print messages it found objectionable.

The Lexington-Urban County Human Rights Commission initially ruled against Hands On. But the shop fought back, and beginning in 2015 the court rulings started going in their direction. Precedents (all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court) have made it clear that under the First Amendment, businesses cannot be compelled to print messages they find objectionable. This is not the same as discriminating against a costumer who falls under a protected class: Hands On would have turned away heterosexual customers who wanted them to print gay pride shirts too. It wasn’t the customer’s identity that mattered—it was the message.

The case made its way to the Kentucky Supreme Court. Yesterday the court ruled in Hands On Originals’ favor, but—awkwardly—not for First Amendment reasons. The local ordinance that GLSO turned to here requires that individuals, not organizations, make claims of discrimination. GLSO thus did not have standing to file the complaint at all, and so the court essentially threw the whole thing out with a unanimous vote in favor of the printer.

While this means that the state Supreme Court did not rule on whether Hands On can be forced to print messages it objects to, Justice David C. Buckingham also wrote separately that he believes that the local Human Rights Commission went “went beyond its charge of preventing discrimination in public accommodation and instead attempted to compel Hands On to engage in expression with which it disagreed.” His lengthy concurrence documents the many U.S. Supreme Court precedents that make it clear that with few exceptions, printers such as Hands On cannot be forced to print messages they object to.

Buckingham’s concurrence doesn’t preclude the possibility of future challenges against printers (or bakers, or any other goods or service provider) for declining to print pro-gay messages, but his writings should be a big warning sign to anybody in Kentucky not to confuse a refusal to print a particular message with discrimination against people.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2oClWaN
via IFTTT

Kentucky Printer Wins Fight To Refuse To Print Pro-LGBT Shirts

A Kentucky printer has won a fight over whether it can be forced to print t-shirts for a local LGBT group. It won on a technicality that doesn’t address the underlying conflict, so more lawsuits over the issue may be on their way. But one judge on the court made it clear that such suits are not likely to succeed.

The case goes back to 2012, when a Lexington-based print shop named Hands On Originals declined to print t-shirts for the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO), for an upcoming pride festival. The owners of Hands On say they will not print messages for customers that go against their religious beliefs, and their website highlights their Christianity as part of their marketing.

The group got its t-shirts elsewhere, but it also filed a complaint with the Lexington-Urban County Human Rights Commission arguing that Hands On discriminated against it because of its members sexual orientation. Hands On responded that it wasn’t discriminating against gay customers but was simply refusing to print messages it found objectionable.

The Lexington-Urban County Human Rights Commission initially ruled against Hands On. But the shop fought back, and beginning in 2015 the court rulings started going in their direction. Precedents (all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court) have made it clear that under the First Amendment, businesses cannot be compelled to print messages they find objectionable. This is not the same as discriminating against a costumer who falls under a protected class: Hands On would have turned away heterosexual customers who wanted them to print gay pride shirts too. It wasn’t the customer’s identity that mattered—it was the message.

The case made its way to the Kentucky Supreme Court. Yesterday the court ruled in Hands On Originals’ favor, but—awkwardly—not for First Amendment reasons. The local ordinance that GLSO turned to here requires that individuals, not organizations, make claims of discrimination. GLSO thus did not have standing to file the complaint at all, and so the court essentially threw the whole thing out with a unanimous vote in favor of the printer.

While this means that the state Supreme Court did not rule on whether Hands On can be forced to print messages it objects to, Justice David C. Buckingham also wrote separately that he believes that the local Human Rights Commission went “went beyond its charge of preventing discrimination in public accommodation and instead attempted to compel Hands On to engage in expression with which it disagreed.” His lengthy concurrence documents the many U.S. Supreme Court precedents that make it clear that with few exceptions, printers such as Hands On cannot be forced to print messages they object to.

Buckingham’s concurrence doesn’t preclude the possibility of future challenges against printers (or bakers, or any other goods or service provider) for declining to print pro-gay messages, but his writings should be a big warning sign to anybody in Kentucky not to confuse a refusal to print a particular message with discrimination against people.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2oClWaN
via IFTTT

Elizabeth Warren Wants To Pay for Medicare for All With a $9 Trillion Tax That Will Hit the Middle Class

For months, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D—Mass.) has hedged on the question of whether she would raise middle class taxes to pay for Medicare for All, the single-payer health care plan she says she supports. Warren has stuck with a talking point about total costs, saying that the middle class would pay less, while critics, political rivals, and even liberal economists friendly to single payer have argued that the enormous additional government spending required by such a plan would inevitably hit the middle class.

Today, Warren released a plan to finance Medicare for All at a total price tag of nearly $52 trillion, including about $20 trillion of new government spending (an estimate that is probably low). Although her plan declares that no middle-class taxes will be necessary to finance the system, it includes what is effectively a new tax on employers that would undoubtedly hit middle-class Americans.

Today, American health care is financed by a mix of public and private payers. Under a single-payer system—what Warren and rival presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) call Medicare for All—virtually all health care spending would instead run through the federal government.

Right now, Warren’s plan says, employers spend about $9 trillion a decade on health insurance coverage. Her plan aims to move the private spending onto the federal budget. Under her proposal, large employers who currently pay for health coverage would be required to pay a comparable amount (equivalent to 98 percent of what they pay now, adjusted for the number of workers they employ) in order to help finance Medicare for All.

Warren shies away from calling this a tax, and she even claims “we don’t need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All.” Instead, she refers to it as an employer Medicare contribution, under which companies “would send payments to the federal government for Medicare.”

But there is a commonly accepted term for a plan that requires companies to send payments to the federal government in order to finance government programs. That word is tax. And that is essentially what this is—a nearly $9 trillion payroll tax (or, perhaps, a head tax with some small-business carve outs). It is thus hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike.

That is the argument that former Vice President Joe Biden, another Democratic presidential hopeful, is already making, with a campaign staffer responding to the release of her plan by saying, “For months, Elizabeth Warren has refused to say if her health care plan would raise taxes on the middle class, and now we know why: because it does. Senator Warren would place a new tax of nearly $9 trillion that will fall on American workers.”

Warren and her defenders will likely try to shift the discussion back to total costs, but that’s just a way of repeating the dodge that has dogged her campaign for much of the year. Warren will no doubt claim that costs would go down under her plan, but there are reasons to doubt this, including an analysis from health care economist Kenneth Thorpe finding that under a Sanders-style plan, more than 70 percent of people who currently have private insurance would see costs increase, as well as an Urban Institute analysis projecting that single-payer plans would raise national health care spending by $7 trillion over a decade.

Nor is this the only problem with her plan. As The Washington Post reports, “some analysts have warned that companies would have strong incentives, in the years before such a law’s enactment, to make it appear their health-care costs are low. Businesses may be encouraged to split off into two entities, one of which might be able to avoid the required health-care contributions because it had none the year before the program kicked off.” At minimum, the incentives and feedback effects of Warren’s plan would be complex and difficult to predict.

Warren’s plan includes other new taxes as well: a six percent tax on billionaires beyond the wealth tax she has already proposed, an increased tax on capital gains, and a 35 percent tax on corporate earnings earned overseas. She also proposes raising trillions in tax revenue through increased enforcement—far exceeding what mainstream experts have suggested is possible.

Indeed, much of Warren’s plan is based on unlikely, and at times outright fantastical, assumptions about what sort of additional revenue could be raised, what health care costs could be contained, and what might be politically feasible. Among other things, she proposes raising $400 billion by passing comprehensive immigration reform, which, given the politics of immigration policy, is only a little more realistic than planning to pay off your mortgage by winning the lottery. The Washington Examiner‘s Philip Klein has published a useful roundup of Warren’s less plausible ideas; the takeaway is that even if Warren somehow managed to raise the enormous amounts of tax she proposes, it probably would still not be anywhere close to enough to finance her plan. (More on this in a future post.)

In some ways, Warren’s plan amounts to a list of technically sophisticated magic asterisks. It is as much an attempt to obscure the economic and political feasibility of passing and implementing a single-payer health care plan as a good-faith attempt to describe what it would practically require.

Yet in another way, it reveals something about both Warren and the economic reality of single-payer: Despite running a campaign based on wonky academic credentials and detail-oriented policy chops, Warren has, until now, repeatedly refused to directly answer questions about precisely how she would finance Medicare for All and whether she would foist new taxes on the middle class. Turns out she didn’t dodge the question because the answer was complex or hard to explain. She dodged it because the answer was so simple it could be expressed in a single word: yes.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34qHfvn
via IFTTT

Trump Is Officially A Floridian After Address Change 

Trump Is Officially A Floridian After Address Change 

President Donald Trump, born and raised in New York City, announced Thursday on Twitter that he has changed his primary residence to Florida, a move that some think could benefit his re-election campaign. 

“I cherish New York, and the people of New York, and always will, but unfortunately, despite the fact that I pay millions of dollars in city, state and local taxes each year, I have been treated very badly by the political leaders of both the city and state. Few have been treated worse,” the president tweeted late Thursday night. 

“I hated having to make this decision, but in the end it will be best for all concerned. As President, I will always be there to help New York and the great people of New York. It will always have a special place in my heart!”

The president made it clear that his new home is in Palm Beach County, Florida, and he’ll be a “bona fide resident of the State of Florida residing at” his Mar-a-Lago Club. 

The New York Times was the first to publish the president’s change of address, citing court documents, as his address changed from Trump Tower in New York City to Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach.

“If I maintain another place or places of abode in some other state or states, I hereby declare that my above-described residence and abode in the State of Florida constitutes my predominant and principal home, and I intend to continue it permanently as such,” President Trump said in court documents. 

The filing also specifies the president’s “other places of abode” as the White House and his other private golf clubs across the country. 

Bloomberg considers the president’s motivation behind the change to be related to his tax overhaul plan: 

“If motivated by tax considerations, it would bolster a point that his political foes have been making for months: His tax overhaul is hurting Democratic-led, high-tax states by prompting the wealthiest residents to move elsewhere.” 

As soon as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo found out about the president’s address change, he tweeted: “Good riddance. It’s not like Mr. Trump paid taxes here anyway… He’s all yours, Florida.”

Shortly after, Sen. Elizabeth Warren accused President Trump of changing his address so he can shield his tax returns from New York officials. 

“Donald Trump doesn’t want the state of New York to see his taxes—I wonder why,” Warren tweeted. “Let’s call this out for what it is: Corruption, plain and simple. Under my anti-corruption plan, all presidential candidates would be required to release their tax returns.”

While there could be several causes for the address change of primary residence, one significant reason could be due to Florida is a mecca for the ultra-wealthy as there is no income tax or an inheritance tax in the state.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 11/01/2019 – 14:05

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WAYaIF Tyler Durden