mitt romney was wrong. at least one member of the 47% supported his presidential candidacy four years ago, though romney didn<u+2019>t return the favor. that would be donald j. trump. actually, it<u+2019>s not clear if trump was among romney<u+2019>s 47%<u+2014>those with no federal income-tax liability<u+2014>in 2012, though the new york times speculates he <u+201c>could have<u+201d> been. but according to documents received by the times, trump <u+201c>declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns<u+201d> and therefore paid no income tax that year. trump has departed from the decades-old custom of tax-return disclosure by presidential candidates, so that the times received the partial 1995 state income-tax returns in the mail from an anonymous source<u+2014>purportedly someone inside trump tower, though the only evidence for that is the return address. follow james on twitter marc kasowitz, a lawyer for trump, said his client did not authorize the disclosure and threatened <u+201c>prompt initiation of appropriate legal action<u+201d> over its publication. that<u+2019>s unlikely to be successful, as the times would claim that the public interest in a candidate<u+2019>s finances is great enough that the paper<u+2019>s first amendment right to publish outweighs any legal prohibition. not that there<u+2019>s all that much to see here. the times concedes that the <u+201c>tax experts<u+201d> it consulted <u+201c>said nothing in the 1995 documents suggested any wrongdoing by mr. trump,<u+201d> even though the size of the loss was unusual enough that it <u+201c>probably attracted extra scrutiny from i.r.s. examiners.<u+201d> the story<u+2019>s headline reads: <u+201c>donald trump tax records show he could have avoided taxes for nearly two decades, the times found.<u+201d> that is, the story rests heavily on speculation about what trump might have done in subsequent years, which are as yet undocumented. for businesses, the federal income tax is a levy on profits<u+2014>revenues minus expenses<u+2014>not revenues. that means you don<u+2019>t pay the tax unless you make a profit. but while the government takes a share of your profit, it does not share your exposure to risk. if you earn $1,000, a substantial portion of it goes to the treasury. if you lose $1,000, it all comes out of your pocket. except that if you stay in business after a loss, you can use the loss to offset profits in future years. <u+201c>although mr. trump<u+2019>s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years,<u+201d> the time limit on such carry-overs, the times reports. under that scenario, however<u+2014>and let us emphasize the times has no facts to back up this speculation<u+2014>trump would still come out behind. a $916 million loss in 1995, followed by $50 million gains in each of the next 18 years comes out to a net loss of $16 million. again, a business doesn<u+2019>t pay income taxes when it loses money. and the carry-over is not adjusted for inflation, so that the putative $900 million in profit from 1996 through 2013 was worth less than $900 million in 1995 dollars. mrs. clinton and the times hope swing voters don<u+2019>t understand the tax system; for those who do, this doesn<u+2019>t reflect badly on trump at all (except on his judgment in refusing to release his returns earlier so as to avert the october surprise). it does make romney look foolish with his 47% analysis back in 2012. as we noted at the time : speaking of politicians<u+2019> impolitic political analysis, hillary clinton is at it again<u+2014>or rather she was at it in february, and we<u+2019>re learning about it now, thanks to the washington free beacon , which obtained an audio recording of the private event. the beacon<u+2019>s lachlan markay was more interested in mrs. clinton<u+2019>s remarks on defense policy, but politico extracted the segment in which she described bernie sanders<u+2019>s supporters <u+201c>as political newbies attempting to deal with an economy that has fallen short of their expectations<u+201d>: at least she didn<u+2019>t call then <u+201c>irredeemable<u+201d> or <u+201c>not america.<u+201d> as political analysis goes, this is more astute than mrs. clinton<u+2019>s own basket of deplorables, romney<u+2019>s 47% or barack obama<u+2019>s bitter clingers. it does seem reasonable to think one reason young voters are attracted to sanders and his promise of <u+201c>political revolution<u+201d> is that they bought expensive college degrees that turned out to be counterfeit tickets to success. mrs. clinton<u+2019>s analysis is incomplete, though understandably so. another reason young people like sanders is his manifest sincerity. even this columnist finds that aspect of sanders<u+2019>s persona appealing, though we regard most of his ideas as foolish and pernicious. but mrs. clinton can<u+2019>t very well acknowledge sanders<u+2019>s sincerity, because of what that would say about the comparison with mrs. clinton. even generally honest people aren<u+2019>t usually that honest. the remark about sanders supporters<u+2019> <u+201c>living in their parents<u+2019> basements<u+201d> was tone-deaf and odd, though. it reminded us of a riff from paul ryan <u+2019>s 2012 republican conventions speech in which, as we recalled, he said much the same thing. when we looked it up, we discovered ryan had not referred to basements at all. what he said was this: the last time this columnist lived with our parents<u+2014>for a few months during the summer when we were 19<u+2014>we stayed in a bedroom. we suspect that is the common experience, especially in parts of the country, namely the south and southwest, where basements are uncommon for reasons of geology or weather. where there are basements, some homeowners will finish them and use them as rec rooms or even bedrooms. more commonly, they<u+2019>re just a place to store useless junk<u+2014>which is not a nice way to characterize the young voters who support your opponent. sanders himself has mixed feelings about mrs. clinton<u+2019>s remark. <u+201c>what she was saying there is absolutely correct,<u+201d> he told abc<u+2019>s <u+201c>this week<u+201d> yesterday, quoted by the puffington host . <u+201c>and that is, you<u+2019>ve got millions of young people, many of whom took out loans in order to go to college, hoping to go out and get decent-paying, good jobs.<u+201d> but on cnn<u+2019>s <u+201c>state of the union,<u+201d> as the washington examiner notes, sanders was asked if the comment bothered him. <u+201c>well, look, of course it does,<u+201d> he said: poor sanders is in the same unpleasant position as ted cruz and marco rubio<u+2014>supporting the candidate who vanquished him in the primaries as the lesser of evils in the general election, and genuinely believing the <u+201c>evils<u+201d> part. we<u+2019>ll find out after election day if the cellar dwellers are persuaded by mrs. clinton<u+2019>s status as the lesser. metaphor alert <u+201c>brutal headwinds crush europe<u+2019>s centre-left heavyweights<u+201d><u+2014>headline, yahoo! news, oct.<u+00a0>1 we blame george w. bush <u+201c>don<u+2019>t blame dark voting trends on online thought bubbles<u+201d><u+2014>headline, globe and mail (toronto), oct.<u+00a0>1 problem and solution gentlemen, you can<u+2019>t fight in here! this is the war room. <u+201c><u+00a0><u+2018>the voting booth .<u+00a0>.<u+00a0>. is simply not the place to protest<u+2019><u+00a0><u+201d><u+2014>headline, new york times, oct.<u+00a0>1 hypothesis and proof<u+2014>i hypothesis and proof<u+2014>ii so much for the war on drugs <u+201c><u+2018>smack for a snack<u+2019>: a day-care center<u+2019>s game for hungry children<u+201d><u+2014>headline, washington post, oct.<u+00a0>2 the lonely lives of scientists <u+201c>beautiful women can be bad for your health, according to scientists<u+201d><u+2014>headline, ghana star, oct.<u+00a0>2 question and answer<u+2014>i question and answer<u+2014>ii it<u+2019>s always in the last place you look <u+201c>in search of donald trump<u+2019>s new york campaign<u+201d><u+2014>headline, theatlantic.com, sept.<u+00a0>30 bottom story of the day <u+201c>obama implies he<u+2019>ll be more vocal about issues after he leaves office<u+201d><u+2014>headline, mcclatchy, sept.<u+00a0>30 every man a king <u+201c>putting aside what the school sees as restrictions based on gender, the university of wisconsin-stout<u+2019>s annual homecoming on saturday will for the first time in nearly 80 years not crown a homecoming king and queen,<u+201d> reports the star tribune of minneapolis: meanwhile, the college fix reports that <u+201c>top administrators at the university of michigan ann arbor announced a new campus-wide policy that allows students to select their own <u+2018>designated personal pronoun,<u+2019> informing the campus community they are expected to adhere to those preferences.<u+201d> student grant strobl <u+201c>decided to change his preferred pronoun to <u+2018>his majesty<u+2019><u+2014>in an attempt to make the point that this policy has no basis in reality.<u+201d> that would solve the uw-stout problem, too. the king is dead, long live the king. follow @jamestaranto on twitter. join fans of best of the web today on facebook. subscribe to the best of the web email with one click. (carol muller helps compile best of the web. thanks to tony lima, irene deblasio, michele schiesser, jackie harty, joe masi, michael segal, sal cannizzo, mike lavender, macrena sailor, rod pennington, chris papouras, henry de fiebre, monty krieger, phillip goggans, debbie wells, zack russ, chuck watson, james benenson, mark nicholas, bruce goldman, ethel fenig, cark krehbiel, brian coates, charlie gaylord and jason bodily. if you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com , and please include the url.)
notes from the underground - wsj
james taranto