#Good News That Will Likely Avoid Cuts To Social Security And Medicare

[davidclarkphotoblog]

Good News That Will Likely Avoid Cuts To Social Security And Medicare

[robertreich]

Trump’s 40 Biggest Broken Promises

Trump voters. Nearly 4 years in, here’s an updated list of Trump’s 40 biggest broken promises.

1. He said coronavirus would “go away without a vaccine.”

You bought it. But it didn’t. While other countries got the pandemic under control and avoided large numbers of fatalities, the virus has killed more than 130,000 Americans*, and that number is still climbing.

2. He said he won’t have time to play golf if elected president.

But he has made more than 250 visits to his golf clubs since he took office – a record for any president – including more trips during the pandemic than meetings with Dr. Fauci. The total financial cost to America? More than $136 million.

3. He said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with something “beautiful.”

It didn’t happen. Instead, 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance since he took office. He has asked the Supreme Court to strike down the law in the middle of a global pandemic with no plan to replace it.

4. He said he’d cut your taxes, and that the super-rich like him would pay more.

He did the opposite. By 2027, the richest 1 percent will have received 83 percent of the Trump tax cut and the richest 0.1 percent, 60 percent of it. But more than half of all Americans will pay more in taxes.

5. He said corporations would use their tax cuts to invest in American workers.

They didn’t. Corporations spent more of their tax savings buying back shares of their own stock than increasing workers wages.

6. He said he would boost economic growth by 4 percent a year.

Nope. The economy stalled, and unemployment has soared to the highest levels since the Great Depression. Just over half of working-age Americans are employed – the worst ratio in 70 years.  

7. He said he wouldn’t “cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.”

His latest budget includes billions in cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

8. He promised to be “the voice” of American workers.

He hasn’t. His administration has stripped workers of their rights, repealed overtime protections, rolled back workplace safety rules, and turned a blind eye to employers who steal their workers’ wages.

9. He promised that the average American family would see a $4,000 pay raise because of his tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

But nothing trickled down. Wages for most Americans have barely kept up with inflation.    

10. He promised that anyone who wants a test for Covid will get one.

But countless Americans still can’t get a test.

11. He said hydroxychloroquine protects against coronavirus.

No way. The FDA revoked its emergency authorization due to the drug’s potentially lethal side effects.

12. He promised to eliminate the federal deficit.

He has increased the federal deficit by more than 60 percent.

13. He said he would hire “only the best people.”

He has fired a record number of his own cabinet and White House picks, and then called them “whackos,” “dumb as a rock," and  "not mentally qualified.”  6 of them have been charged with crimes.

14. He promised to bring down the price of prescription drugs and said drug companies are “getting away with murder.”

They still are. Drug prices have soared, and a company that got federal funds to develop a drug to treat coronavirus is charging $3,000 a pop.=

15. He promised to revive the struggling coal industry and bring back lost coal mining jobs.

The coal industry has continued to lose jobs as clean energy becomes cheaper. 

16. He promised to help American workers during the pandemic.

But 80% of the tax benefits in the coronavirus stimulus package have gone to millionaires and billionaires. And at least 21 million Americans have lost extra unemployment benefits, with no new stimulus check to fall back on.

17. He said he’d drain the swamp.

Instead, he’s brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, and he’s filled departments and agencies with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who are crafting new policies for the same industries they used to work for.

18. He promised to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions.

His Justice Department is trying to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act, including protections for people with preexisting conditions.

19. He said Mexico would pay for his border wall.

The wall is estimated to cost American taxpayers an estimated $11 billion.

20. He promised to bring peace to the Middle East.

Instead, tensions have increased and his so-called “peace plan” was dead on arrival.

21. He promised to lock up Hillary Clinton for using a private email server.

He didn’t. Funny enough, Trump uses his personal cell-phone for official business, and several members of his own administration, including Jared Kushner and Ivanka, have used private email in the White House.

22. He promised to use his business experience to whip the federal government into shape.

He hasn’t. His White House is in permanent chaos. He caused the longest government shutdown in our nation’s history when he didn’t get funding for his wall.

23. He promised to end DACA.

The Supreme Court ruled that his plan to deport 700,000 young immigrants was unconstitutional, and DACA still stands.  

24. He promised “six weeks of paid maternity leave to any mother with a newborn child whose employer does not provide the benefit.”

He hasn’t delivered.

25. He promised to bring an end to Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear program.

Kim is expanding North Korea’s nuclear program.

26. He said he would distance himself from his businesses while in office.

He continues to make money from his properties and maintain his grip on his real estate empire.

27. He said he’d force companies to keep jobs in America, and that there would be consequences for companies that shipped jobs abroad.

Since he took office, companies like GE, Carrier, Ford, and Harley Davidson have continued to outsource thousands of jobs while still receiving massive tax breaks. And offshoring by federal contractors has increased.

28. He promised to end the opioid crisis.

Americans are now more likely to die from an opioid overdose than a car accident.

29. He said he’d release his tax returns.

It’s been nearly 4 years. He hasn’t released his tax returns.

30. He promised to tear up the Iran nuclear deal and renegotiate a better deal.

Negotiations have gone nowhere, and he brought us to the brink of war.

31. He promised to enact term limits for all members of Congress.

He has not even tried to enact term limits.

32. He promised that China would pay for tariffs on imported goods.

His trade war has cost U.S. consumers $34 billion a year, eliminated 300,000 American jobs, and cost American taxpayers $22 billion in subsidies for farmers hurt by the tariffs.

33. He promised to “push colleges to cut the skyrocketing cost of tuition.”

Instead, he’s made it easier for for-profit colleges to defraud students, and tuition is still rising.

34. He promised to protect American steel jobs.

The steel industry continues to lose jobs.

35. He promised tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would spur economic growth and pay for themselves.

His tax cuts will add $2 trillion to the federal deficit.

36. After pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, he said he’d negotiate a better deal on the environment.

He hasn’t attempted to negotiate any deal.  

37. He promised that the many women who accused him of sexual misconduct “will be sued after the election is over.”

He hasn’t sued them, presumably because he doesn’t want the truth to come out.

38. He promised to bring back all troops from Afghanistan.

He now says: "We’ll always have somebody there.”

39. He pledged to put America first.

Instead, he’s deferred to dictators and authoritarians at America’s expense, and ostracized our allies — who now laugh at us behind our back.

40. He promised to be the voice of the common people.

He’s made his rich friends richer, increased the political power of big corporations and the wealthy, and harmed working Americans.Don’t let the liar-in-chief break any more promises. Vote him out in November.

[seymour-butz-stuff]

In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.

Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row.

ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years. The data provides an unprecedented look inside the financial lives of America’s titans, including Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not just their income and taxes, but also their investments, stock trades, gambling winnings and even the results of audits.

Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest can — perfectly legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.

Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, amassing little wealth and paying the federal government a percentage of their income that rises if they earn more. In recent years, the median American household earned about $70,000 annually and paid 14% in federal taxes. The highest income tax rate, 37%, kicked in this year, for couples, on earnings above $628,300.

The confidential tax records obtained by ProPublica show that the ultrarich effectively sidestep this system.

I recommend going to the website to read the rest of the report, but the non-interactive text parts are below. Just in case it mysteriously vanishes.

America’s billionaires avail themselves of tax-avoidance strategies beyond the reach of ordinary people. Their wealth derives from the skyrocketing value of their assets, like stock and property. Those gains are not defined by U.S. laws as taxable income unless and until the billionaires sell.

To capture the financial reality of the richest Americans, ProPublica undertook an analysis that has never been done before. We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest Americans paid each year to how much Forbes estimated their wealth grew in that same time period.

We’re going to call this their true tax rate.

The results are stark. According to Forbes, those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.

It’s a completely different picture for middle-class Americans, for example, wage earners in their early 40s who have amassed a typical amount of wealth for people their age. From 2014 to 2018, such households saw their net worth expand by about $65,000 after taxes on average, mostly due to the rise in value of their homes. But because the vast bulk of their earnings were salaries, their tax bills were almost as much, nearly $62,000, over that five-year period.

No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett, the grandfatherly centibillionaire. That’s perhaps surprising, given his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich. According to Forbes, his riches rose $24.3 billion between 2014 and 2018. Over those years, the data shows, Buffett reported paying $23.7 million in taxes. 

That works out to a true tax rate of 0.1%, or less than 10 cents for every $100 he added to his wealth.

In the coming months, ProPublica will use the IRS data we have obtained to explore in detail how the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, exploit loopholes and escape scrutiny from federal auditors.

Experts have long understood the broad outlines of how little the wealthy are taxed in the United States, and many lay people have long suspected the same thing.

But few specifics about individuals ever emerge in public. Tax information is among the most zealously guarded secrets in the federal government. ProPublica has decided to reveal individual tax information of some of the wealthiest Americans because it is only by seeing specifics that the public can understand the realities of the country’s tax system.

Consider Bezos’ 2007, one of the years he paid zero in federal income taxes. Amazon’s stock more than doubled. Bezos’ fortune leapt $3.8 billion, according to Forbes, whose wealth estimates are widely cited. How did a person enjoying that sort of wealth explosion end up paying no income tax?

In that year, Bezos, who filed his taxes jointly with his then-wife, MacKenzie Scott, reported a paltry (for him) $46 million in income, largely from interest and dividend payments on outside investments. He was able to offset every penny he earned with losses from side investments and various deductions, like interest expenses on debts and the vague catchall category of “other expenses.”

In 2011, a year in which his wealth held roughly steady at $18 billion, Bezos filed a tax return reporting he lost money — his income that year was more than offset by investment losses. What’s more, because, according to the tax law, he made so little, he even claimed and received a $4,000 tax credit for his children.

His tax avoidance is even more striking if you examine 2006 to 2018, a period for which ProPublica has complete data. Bezos’ wealth increased by $127 billion, according to Forbes, but he reported a total of $6.5 billion in income. The $1.4 billion he paid in personal federal taxes is a massive number — yet it amounts to a 1.1% true tax rate on the rise in his fortune.

The revelations provided by the IRS data come at a crucial moment. Wealth inequality has become one of the defining issues of our age. The president and Congress are considering the most ambitious tax increases in decades on those with high incomes. But the American tax conversation has been dominated by debate over incremental changes, such as whether the top tax rate should be 39.6% rather than 37%.

ProPublica’s data shows that while some wealthy Americans, such as hedge fund managers, would pay more taxes under the current Biden administration proposals, the vast majority of the top 25 would see little change.

The tax data was provided to ProPublica after we published a series of articles scrutinizing the IRS. The articles exposed how years of budget cuts have hobbled the agency’s ability to enforce the law and how the largest corporations and the rich have benefited from the IRS’ weakness. They also showed how people in poor regions are now more likely to be audited than those in affluent areas.

ProPublica is not disclosing how it obtained the data, which was given to us in raw form, with no conditions or conclusions. ProPublica reporters spent months processing and analyzing the material to transform it into a usable database.

We then verified the information by comparing elements of it with dozens of already public tax details (in court documents, politicians’ financial disclosures and news stories) as well as by vetting it with individuals whose tax information is contained in the trove. Every person whose tax information is described in this story was asked to comment. Those who responded, including Buffett, Bloomberg and Icahn, all said they had paid the taxes they owed.

A spokesman for Soros said in a statement: “Between 2016 and 2018 George Soros lost money on his investments, therefore he did not owe federal income taxes in those years. Mr. Soros has long supported higher taxes for wealthy Americans.” Personal and corporate representatives of Bezos declined to receive detailed questions about the matter. ProPublica attempted to reach Scott through her divorce attorney, a personal representative and family members; she did not respond. Musk responded to an initial query with a lone punctuation mark: “?” After we sent detailed questions to him, he did not reply.

One of the billionaires mentioned in this article objected, arguing that publishing personal tax information is a violation of privacy. We have concluded that the public interest in knowing this information at this pivotal moment outweighs that legitimate concern.

The consequences of allowing the most prosperous to game the tax system have been profound. Federal budgets, apart from military spending, have been constrained for decades. Roads and bridges have crumbled, social services have withered and the solvency of Social Security and Medicare is perpetually in question.

There is an even more fundamental issue than which programs get funded or not: Taxes are a kind of collective sacrifice. No one loves giving their hard-earned money to the government. But the system works only as long as it’s perceived to be fair.

Our analysis of tax data for the 25 richest Americans quantifies just how unfair the system has become.

By the end of 2018, the 25 were worth $1.1 trillion.

For comparison, it would take 14.3 million ordinary American wage earners put together to equal that same amount of wealth.

The personal federal tax bill for the top 25 in 2018: $1.9 billion.

The bill for the wage earners: $143 billion.

The idea of a regular tax on income, much less on wealth, does not appear in the country’s founding documents. In fact, Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits “direct” taxes on citizens under most circumstances. This meant that for decades, the U.S. government mainly funded itself through “indirect” taxes: tariffs and levies on consumer goods like tobacco and alcohol.

With the costs of the Civil War looming, Congress imposed a national income tax in 1861. The wealthy helped force its repeal soon after the war ended. (Their pique could only have been exacerbated by the fact that the law required public disclosure. The annual income of the moguls of the day — $1.3 million for William Astor; $576,000 for Cornelius Vanderbilt — was listed in the pages of The New York Times in 1865.)

By the late 19th and early 20th century, wealth inequality was acute and the political climate was changing. The federal government began expanding, creating agencies to protect food, workers and more. It needed funding, but tariffs were pinching regular Americans more than the rich. The Supreme Court had rejected an 1894 law that would have created an income tax. So Congress moved to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and gave the government power “to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”

In the early years, the personal income tax worked as Congress intended, falling squarely on the richest. In 1918, only 15% of American families owed any tax. The top 1% paid 80% of the revenue raised, according to historian W. Elliot Brownlee.

But a question remained: What would count as income and what wouldn’t? In 1916, a woman named Myrtle Macomber received a dividend for her Standard Oil of California shares. She owed taxes, thanks to the new law. The dividend had not come in cash, however. It came in the form of an additional share for every two shares she already held. She paid the taxes and then brought a court challenge: Yes, she’d gotten a bit richer, but she hadn’t received any money. Therefore, she argued, she’d received no “income.”

Four years later, the Supreme Court agreed. In Eisner v. Macomber, the high court ruled that income derived only from proceeds. A person needed to sell an asset — stock, bond or building — and reap some money before it could be taxed.

Since then, the concept that income comes only from proceeds — when gains are “realized” — has been the bedrock of the U.S. tax system. Wages are taxed. Cash dividends are taxed. Gains from selling assets are taxed. But if a taxpayer hasn’t sold anything, there is no income and therefore no tax.

Contemporary critics of Macomber were plentiful and prescient. Cordell Hull, the congressman known as the “father” of the income tax, assailed the decision, according to scholar Marjorie Kornhauser. Hull predicted that tax avoidance would become common. The ruling opened a gaping loophole, Hull warned, allowing industrialists to build a company and borrow against the stock to pay living expenses. Anyone could “live upon the value” of their company stock “without selling it, and of course, without ever paying” tax, he said.

Hull’s prediction would reach full flower only decades later, spurred by a series of epochal economic, legal and cultural changes that began to gather momentum in the 1970s. Antitrust enforcers increasingly accepted mergers and stopped trying to break up huge corporations. For their part, companies came to obsess over the value of their stock to the exclusion of nearly everything else. That helped give rise in the last 40 years to a series of corporate monoliths — beginning with Microsoft and Oracle in the 1980s and 1990s and continuing to Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple today — that often have concentrated ownership, high profit margins and rich share prices. The winner-take-all economy has created modern fortunes that by some measures eclipse those of John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie.

In the here and now, the ultrawealthy use an array of techniques that aren’t available to those of lesser means to get around the tax system.

Certainly, there are illegal tax evaders among them, but it turns out billionaires don’t have to evade taxes exotically and illicitly — they can avoid them routinely and legally.

Most Americans have to work to live. When they do, they get paid — and they get taxed. The federal government considers almost every dollar workers earn to be “income,” and employers take taxes directly out of their paychecks.

The Bezoses of the world have no need to be paid a salary. Bezos’ Amazon wages have long been set at the middle-class level of around $80,000 a year.

For years, there’s been something of a competition among elite founder-CEOs to go even lower. Steve Jobs took $1 in salary when he returned to Apple in the 1990s. Facebook’s Zuckerberg, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Google’s Larry Page have all done the same.

Yet this is not the self-effacing gesture it appears to be: Wages are taxed at a high rate. The top 25 wealthiest Americans reported $158 million in wages in 2018, according to the IRS data. That’s a mere 1.1% of what they listed on their tax forms as their total reported income. The rest mostly came from dividends and the sale of stock, bonds or other investments, which are taxed at lower rates than wages.

As Congressman Hull envisioned long ago, the ultrawealthy typically hold fast to shares in the companies they’ve founded. Many titans of the 21st century sit on mountains of what are known as unrealized gains, the total size of which fluctuates each day as stock prices rise and fall. Of the $4.25 trillion in wealth held by U.S. billionaires, some $2.7 trillion is unrealized, according to Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, economists at the University of California, Berkeley.

Buffett has famously held onto his stock in the company he founded, Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate that owns Geico, Duracell and significant stakes in American Express and Coca-Cola. That has allowed Buffett to largely avoid transforming his wealth into income. From 2015 through 2018, he reported annual income ranging from $11.6 million to $25 million. That may seem like a lot, but Buffett ranks as roughly the world’s sixth-richest person — he’s worth $110 billion as of Forbes’ estimate in May 2021. At least 14,000 U.S. taxpayers in 2015 reported higher income than him, according to IRS data.

There’s also a second strategy Buffett relies on that minimizes income, and therefore, taxes. Berkshire does not pay a dividend, the sum (a piece of the profits, in theory) that many companies pay each quarter to those who own their stock. Buffett has always argued that it is better to use that money to find investments for Berkshire that will further boost the value of shares held by him and other investors. If Berkshire had offered anywhere close to the average dividend in recent years, Buffett would have received over $1 billion in dividend income and owed hundreds of millions in taxes each year.

Many Silicon Valley and infotech companies have emulated Buffett’s model, eschewing stock dividends, at least for a time. In the 1980s and 1990s, companies like Microsoft and Oracle offered shareholders rocketing growth and profits but did not pay dividends. Google, Facebook, Amazon and Tesla do not pay dividends.

In a detailed written response, Buffett defended his practices but did not directly address ProPublica’s true tax rate calculation. “I continue to believe that the tax code should be changed substantially,” he wrote, adding that he thought “huge dynastic wealth is not desirable for our society.”

The decision not to have Berkshire pay dividends has been supported by the vast majority of his shareholders. “I can’t think of any large public company with shareholders so united in their reinvestment beliefs,” he wrote. And he pointed out that Berkshire Hathaway pays significant corporate taxes, accounting for 1.5% of total U.S. corporate taxes in 2019 and 2020.

Buffett reiterated that he has begun giving his enormous fortune away and ultimately plans to donate 99.5% of it to charity. “I believe the money will be of more use to society if disbursed philanthropically than if it is used to slightly reduce an ever-increasing U.S. debt,” he wrote.

So how do megabillionaires pay their megabills while opting for $1 salaries and hanging onto their stock? According to public documents and experts, the answer for some is borrowing money — lots of it.

For regular people, borrowing money is often something done out of necessity, say for a car or a home. But for the ultrawealthy, it can be a way to access billions without producing income, and thus, income tax.

The tax math provides a clear incentive for this. If you own a company and take a huge salary, you’ll pay 37% in income tax on the bulk of it. Sell stock and you’ll pay 20% in capital gains tax — and lose some control over your company. But take out a loan, and these days you’ll pay a single-digit interest rate and no tax; since loans must be paid back, the IRS doesn’t consider them income. Banks typically require collateral, but the wealthy have plenty of that.

The vast majority of the ultrawealthy’s loans do not appear in the tax records obtained by ProPublica since they are generally not disclosed to the IRS. But occasionally, the loans are disclosed in securities filings. In 2014, for example, Oracle revealed that its CEO, Ellison, had a credit line secured by about $10 billion of his shares.

Last year Tesla reported that Musk had pledged some 92 million shares, which were worth about $57.7 billion as of May 29, 2021, as collateral for personal loans.

With the exception of one year when he exercised more than a billion dollars in stock options, Musk’s tax bills in no way reflect the fortune he has at his disposal. In 2015, he paid $68,000 in federal income tax. In 2017, it was $65,000, and in 2018 he paid no federal income tax. Between 2014 and 2018, he had a true tax rate of 3.27%.

The IRS records provide glimpses of other massive loans. In both 2016 and 2017, investor Carl Icahn, who ranks as the 40th-wealthiest American on the Forbes list, paid no federal income taxes despite reporting a total of $544 million in adjusted gross income (which the IRS defines as earnings minus items like student loan interest payments or alimony). Icahn had an outstanding loan of $1.2 billion with Bank of America among other loans, according to the IRS data. It was technically a mortgage because it was secured, at least in part, by Manhattan penthouse apartments and other properties.

Borrowing offers multiple benefits to Icahn: He gets huge tranches of cash to turbocharge his investment returns. Then he gets to deduct the interest from his taxes. In an interview, Icahn explained that he reports the profits and losses of his business empire on his personal taxes.

Icahn acknowledged that he is a “big borrower. I do borrow a lot of money.” Asked if he takes out loans also to lower his tax bill, Icahn said: “No, not at all. My borrowing is to win. I enjoy the competition. I enjoy winning.”

He said adjusted gross income was a misleading figure for him. After taking hundreds of millions in deductions for the interest on his loans, he registered tax losses for both years, he said. “I didn’t make money because, unfortunately for me, my interest was higher than my whole adjusted income.”

Asked whether it was appropriate that he had paid no income tax in certain years, Icahn said he was perplexed by the question. “There’s a reason it’s called income tax,” he said. “The reason is if, if you’re a poor person, a rich person, if you are Apple — if you have no income, you don’t pay taxes.” He added: “Do you think a rich person should pay taxes no matter what? I don’t think it’s germane. How can you ask me that question?”

Skeptics might question our analysis of how little the superrich pay in taxes. For one, they might argue that owners of companies get hit by corporate taxes. They also might counter that some billionaires cannot avoid income — and therefore taxes. And after death, the common understanding goes, there’s a final no-escape clause: the estate tax, which imposes a steep tax rate on sums over $11.7 million.

ProPublica found that none of these factors alter the fundamental picture.

Take corporate taxes. When companies pay them, economists say, these costs are passed on to the companies’ owners, workers or even consumers. Models differ, but they generally assume big stockholders shoulder the lion’s share.

Corporate taxes, however, have plummeted in recent decades in what has become a golden age of corporate tax avoidance. By sending profits abroad, companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple have often paid little or no U.S. corporate tax.

For some of the nation’s wealthiest people, particularly Bezos and Musk, adding corporate taxes to the equation would hardly change anything at all. Other companies like Berkshire Hathaway and Walmart do pay more, which means that for people like Buffett and the Waltons, corporate tax could add significantly to their burden.

It is also true that some billionaires don’t avoid taxes by avoiding incomes. In 2018, nine of the 25 wealthiest Americans reported more than $500 million in income and three more than $1 billion.

In such cases, though, the data obtained by ProPublica shows billionaires have a palette of tax-avoidance options to offset their gains using credits, deductions (which can include charitable donations) or losses to lower or even zero out their tax bills. Some own sports teams that offer such lucrative write-offs that owners often end up paying far lower tax rates than their millionaire players. Others own commercial buildings that steadily rise in value but nevertheless can be used to throw off paper losses that offset income.

Michael Bloomberg, the 13th-richest American on the Forbes list, often reports high income because the profits of the private company he controls flow mainly to him.

In 2018, he reported income of $1.9 billion. When it came to his taxes, Bloomberg managed to slash his bill by using deductions made possible by tax cuts passed during the Trump administration, charitable donations of $968.3 million and credits for having paid foreign taxes. The end result was that he paid $70.7 million in income tax on that almost $2 billion in income. That amounts to just a 3.7% conventional income tax rate. Between 2014 and 2018, Bloomberg had a true tax rate of 1.30%.

In a statement, a spokesman for Bloomberg noted that as a candidate, Bloomberg had advocated for a variety of tax hikes on the wealthy. “Mike Bloomberg pays the maximum tax rate on all federal, state, local and international taxable income as prescribed by law,” the spokesman wrote. And he cited Bloomberg’s philanthropic giving, offering the calculation that “taken together, what Mike gives to charity and pays in taxes amounts to approximately 75% of his annual income.”

The statement also noted: “The release of a private citizen’s tax returns should raise real privacy concerns regardless of political affiliation or views on tax policy. In the United States no private citizen should fear the illegal release of their taxes. We intend to use all legal means at our disposal to determine which individual or government entity leaked these and ensure that they are held responsible.”

Ultimately, after decades of wealth accumulation, the estate tax is supposed to serve as a backstop, allowing authorities an opportunity to finally take a piece of giant fortunes before they pass to a new generation. But in reality, preparing for death is more like the last stage of tax avoidance for the ultrawealthy.

University of Southern California tax law professor Edward McCaffery has summarized the entire arc with the catchphrase “buy, borrow, die.”

The notion of dying as a tax benefit seems paradoxical. Normally when someone sells an asset, even a minute before they die, they owe 20% capital gains tax. But at death, that changes. Any capital gains till that moment are not taxed. This allows the ultrarich and their heirs to avoid paying billions in taxes. The “step-up in basis” is widely recognized by experts across the political spectrum as a flaw in the code.

Then comes the estate tax, which, at 40%, is among the highest in the federal code. This tax is supposed to give the government one last chance to get a piece of all those unrealized gains and other assets the wealthiest Americans accumulate over their lifetimes.

It’s clear, though, from aggregate IRS data, tax research and what little trickles into the public arena about estate planning of the wealthy that they can readily escape turning over almost half of the value of their estates. Many of the richest create foundations for philanthropic giving, which provide large charitable tax deductions during their lifetimes and bypass the estate tax when they die.

Wealth managers offer clients a range of opaque and complicated trusts that allow the wealthiest Americans to give large sums to their heirs without paying estate taxes. The IRS data obtained by ProPublica gives some insight into the ultrawealthy’s estate planning, showing hundreds of these trusts.

The result is that large fortunes can pass largely intact from one generation to the next. Of the 25 richest people in America today, about a quarter are heirs: three are Waltons, two are scions of the Mars candy fortune and one is the son of Estée Lauder.

In the past year and a half, hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from COVID-19, while millions were thrown out of work. But one of the bleakest periods in American history turned out to be one of the most lucrative for billionaires. They added $1.2 trillion to their fortunes from January 2020 to the end of April of this year, according to Forbes.

That windfall is among the many factors that have led the country to an inflection point, one that traces back to a half-century of growing wealth inequality and the financial crisis of 2008, which left many with lasting economic damage. American history is rich with such turns. There have been famous acts of tax resistance, like the Boston Tea Party, countered by less well-known efforts to have the rich pay more.

One such incident, over half a century ago, appeared as if it might spark great change. President Lyndon Johnson’s outgoing treasury secretary, Joseph Barr, shocked the nation when he revealed that 155 Americans making over $200,000 (about $1.6 million today) had paid no taxes. That group, he told the Senate, included 21 millionaires.

“We face now the possibility of a taxpayer revolt if we do not soon make major reforms in our income taxes,” Barr said. Members of Congress received more furious letters about the tax scofflaws that year than they did about the Vietnam War.

Congress did pass some reforms, but the long-term trend was a revolt in the opposite direction, which then accelerated with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Since then, through a combination of political donations, lobbying, charitable giving and even direct bids for political office, the ultrawealthy have helped shape the debate about taxation in their favor.

One apparent exception: Buffett, who broke ranks with his billionaire cohort to call for higher taxes on the rich. In a famous New York Times op-ed in 2011, Buffett wrote, “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”

Buffett did something in that article that few Americans do: He publicly revealed how much he had paid in personal federal taxes the previous year ($6.9 million). Separately, Forbes estimated his fortune had risen $3 billion that year. Using that information, an observer could have calculated his true tax rate; it was 0.2%. But then, as now, the discussion that ensued on taxes was centered on the traditional income tax rate.

In 2011, President Barack Obama proposed legislation, known as the Buffett Rule. It would have raised income tax rates on people reporting over a million dollars a year. It didn’t pass. Even if it had, however, the Buffett Rule wouldn’t have raised Buffett’s taxes significantly. If you can avoid income, you can avoid taxes.

Today, just a few years after Republicans passed a massive tax cut that disproportionately benefited the wealthy, the country may be facing another swing of the pendulum, back toward a popular demand to raise taxes on the wealthy. In the face of growing inequality and with spending ambitions that rival those of Franklin D. Roosevelt or Johnson, the Biden administration has proposed a slate of changes. These include raising the tax rates on people making over $400,000 and bumping the top income tax rate from 37% to 39.6%, with a top rate for long-term capital gains to match that. The administration also wants to up the corporate tax rate and to increase the IRS’ budget.

Some Democrats have gone further, floating ideas that challenge the tax structure as it’s existed for the last century. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has proposed taxing unrealized capital gains, a shot through the heart of Macomber. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed wealth taxes.

Aggressive new laws would likely inspire new, sophisticated avoidance techniques. A few countries, including Switzerland and Spain, have wealth taxes on a small scale. Several, most recently France, have abandoned them as unworkable. Opponents contend that they are complicated to administer, as it is hard to value assets, particularly of private companies and property.

What it would take for a fundamental overhaul of the U.S. tax system is not clear. But the IRS data obtained by ProPublica illuminates that all of these conversations have been taking place in a vacuum. Neither political leaders nor the public have ever had an accurate picture of how comprehensively the wealthiest Americans avoid paying taxes.

Buffett and his fellow billionaires have known this secret for a long time. As Buffett put it in 2011: “There’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 14, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

“Come Wednesday, we begin a new chapter.”

So said President-Elect Joe Biden tonight as he laid out a plan for a $1.9 trillion emergency vaccination and relief package to get the country through and past the coronavirus. The Trump administration created no federal program for the distribution of the coronavirus vaccine, leaving us woefully behind where we need to be to get our population vaccinated. And the virus is spreading fast. Over the past week, we have had an average of almost 250,000 new cases a day of coronavirus, with daily deaths on either side of 4000. We are approaching 390,000 recorded deaths from Covid-19.

Biden’s plan calls for $50 billion to ramp up Covid-19 testing, including rapid tests, and to help schools and local governments establish regular testing systems. It calls for an investment of $30 billion in the Disaster Relief Fund to make sure it can provide supplies for the pandemic.

It starts by addressing the pandemic, for both Biden and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris believe that until people are comfortable circulating again, the economy will not rebound. But the plan also calls for federal support to rebuild the economy, a reflection of the ongoing crisis that in the last week led 965,000 Americans to turn to unemployment insurance for the first time, joining more than 5 million who have already filed claims.

The plan calls for $1400 stimulus checks for individuals, expanded unemployment benefits through September, an end to eviction and foreclosure until September 30, $30 billion to help people meet payments for rent or utilities, and a $15 minimum wage. Biden is calling for aid for child care, a $3 billion investment in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and $350 billion for state, local, and tribal governments to support front line workers.

Biden laid out his ambitious plan even as fallout continued from the January 6 insurrection in Washington, D.C., when Trump supporters tried to overturn his victory in the 2020 election. Today the FBI continued to track down and arrest rioters, while the pro-Trump faction of the Republican Party continued its attempt to wrest control from establishment Republicans.

But while Republican lawmakers are calling for “unity” to deflect attention from the riot and to avoid accountability, Biden used this speech, at this time, to calm tensions and call for unity to move all Americans forward.

He emphasized, as he always does, that he wants to be a president for all Americans, not just those who voted for him, and that if we work together we can accomplish anything. He tried to appeal to disaffected Republicans by highlighting his plan to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, as well as to create new, well-paying jobs in new fields and in long delayed infrastructure projects. To reach out to religious voters who were horrified last week by the vision of those who self-identify as Christians calling for the death of Vice President Mike Pence, Biden emphasized the morality in the plan: a good society should not let children go to bed hungry.

He made a sharp contrast with the current president, not only by sharing an actual plan to confront real problems, but also by empathizing with Americans who have lost loved ones to the pandemic and who are hurting in the stalled economy. “Every day matters, every person matters,” he said.

But Biden’s plan is far larger than a way to address our current crisis. It outlines a vision for America that reaches back to an older time, when both parties shared the idea that the government had a role to play in the economy, regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, and promoting infrastructure.

That vision was at the heart of the New Deal, ushered in by Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt after the Great Crash of 1929 and the Depression that followed it illustrated that the American economy needed a referee to keep the wealthy playing by the rules. Government intervention proved so successful and so popular that the Republican Party, which had initially recoiled from what its leaders incorrectly insisted was communism, by 1952 had adopted the idea of an activist government. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower added the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Cabinet on April 11, 1953, and in 1956 signed into law the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which began the construction of 41,000 miles of interstate highways.

While this system was enormously popular, reactionary Republicans hated business regulation, the incursion of the federal government into lucrative infrastructure fields, and the taxes it took to pay for the new programs (the top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 91%). They launched a movement to end what was popularly known as the “liberal consensus”: the idea that the government should take an active role in keeping the economic playing field level.  

The liberal consensus was widely popular, these “Movement Conservatives” turned to the issue of race to break it. After the Supreme Court unanimously declared racial segregation in schools unconstitutional in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, Movement Conservatives warned that an active government was not defending equality but redistributing the tax dollars of hardworking white men to grasping minorities through social programs.

By 1980, Movement Conservatives were gaining power in the Republican Party by calling for tax cuts and smaller government, slashing regulations and domestic programs even as they poured money into the military and their tax cuts began moving money upward. By the 1990s, Movement Conservatives had gained the upper hand in the party and, determined to take the government back to the days before the New Deal, were systematically purging it of what they called “RINOs”—Republicans in Name Only. They would, they said, make the government small enough to drown it in a bathtub.

As they dragged the country toward the right, Republicans pulled the Democrats from the New Deal toward reforms Democratic lawmakers hoped could attract the voters they had lost to the Republicans. “The era of big government is over,” President Bill Clinton famously said, although he continued to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from Republican cuts.

The Democratic defense of an active government was popular—people actually like government regulation, social welfare programs, and roads and bridges. But Republicans continued to be determined to get rid of the liberal consensus once and for all, insisting that true liberty would free individuals to organize a booming economy. Trump’s administration was the culmination of two generations of Republican attempts to dismantle the New Deal state.

But now, the dangers of gutting our government and empowering private business to extremes have become only too clear. For four years, we have watched as a few privileged business leaders got rid of career government employees and handed their jobs to lackeys. The result has been a raging pandemic and a devastating economic collapse, as money has moved dramatically upward. Even before the pandemic, the Trump administration had added 50% to the national debt despite cuts to domestic programs. In the 2020 election, Trump offered more of the same. Americans rejected him and chose Biden.

Biden’s speech tonight marked a resurrection of the idea of an activist government as a positive good. He is calling for the government to invest in ordinary Americans rather than in the people at the top of the economy, and is openly calling for higher taxes on the wealthy to fund such investment. “Asking everyone to pay their fair share at the top so we can make permanent investments to rescue and rebuild America is the right thing for our economy,” he said. Unlike the New Dealers and Eisenhower Republicans of the mid-20th century, though, Biden’s vision is not centered on ensuring that a white man can take care of his family. It is centered on guaranteeing a fair economy for all, focusing on an idea of community that highlights the needs of women and children.

The idea of a government that supports ordinary Americans rather than the wealthy was first articulated by Abraham Lincoln in 1859 and was the system the Republicans first put in place during the Civil War. They paid for the programs with our first national taxes, including an income tax. After industrialists cut back that original system, Republican Theodore Roosevelt brought it back, and after it lapsed again in the 1920s, his Democratic cousin Franklin rebuilt it in such a profound way that it shaped modern America. With that system now on the verge of destruction yet again, Biden is making a bid to bring it back to life in a new form.

It is a new chapter indeed, but in a very traditional American story.

—-

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[reading-writing-revolution]

Heather Cox Richardson:

July 26, 2020 (Sunday)

Reality is disrupting the ideology of today’s Republican Party.

For a generation, Republicans have tried to unravel the activist government under which Americans have lived since the 1930s, when Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt created a government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and invested in infrastructure. From the beginning, that government was enormously popular. Both Republicans and Democrats believed that the principle behind it—that the country worked best when government protected and defended ordinary Americans—was permanent.

But the ideologues who now control the Republican Party have always wanted to get rid of this New Deal state and go back to the world of the 1920s, when businessmen ran the government. They believe that government regulation and taxation is an assault on their liberty, because it restricts their ability to make money.

They have won office not by convincing Americans to give up their own government benefits—most Americans actually like clean water and Social Security and safe bridges—but by selling a narrative in which “Liberals” are trying to undermine the country by stealing the tax dollars of hardworking Americans—quietly understood to be white men—and redistributing them to lazy people who want handouts, not-so-quietly understood to be people of color and feminist women. According to this narrative, legislation that protects ordinary Americans simply redistributes wealth. It is “socialism,” or “communism.”

Meanwhile, Republican policies have actually redistributed wealth upward. When voters began to turn against those policies, Republicans upped the ante, saying that “Liberals” were simply buying Black votes with handouts, or, as Carly Fiorina said in a 2016 debate, planning to butcher babies and sell their body parts. To make sure Republicans stayed in power, they suppressed voting by people likely to vote Democratic, and gerrymandered states so that even if Democrats won a majority of votes, they would have a minority of representatives.

This system rewarded those who moved to the right, not to the middle. It gave them Donald Trump as a 2016 candidate, who talked of Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists and treated women not as equals but as objects either for sex or derision.

And, although as a candidate Trump talked about making taxes fairer, improving health care, and helping those struggling economically, in fact as president he has done more to bring about the destruction of the New Deal state than most of his predecessors. He has slashed regulations, given a huge tax cut to the wealthy, and gutted the government.

If the end of the New Deal state is going to usher in a new era of peace and prosperity, it should be now.

Instead, the gutting of our government destroyed our carefully constructed pandemic response teams and plans, leaving America vulnerable to the coronavirus. Pressed to take the lead on combatting the virus, the administration refused to use federal power, and instead relied on “public-private partnerships” which meant states were largely on their own. When governors tried to take over, the Republican objection to government regulation, cultivated over a generation, had people refusing to wear masks or follow government instructions.

As the rest of the world watches in horror, we have suffered more than 4 million infections, and are approaching 150,000 deaths.

The pandemic also crashed the economy as businesses shut down to avoid infections. It threw more than 20 million Americans out of work. Republican ideology says the government has no business supporting ordinary Americans: they should work to survive, even if that means they have to take the risk of contracting Covid-19. Schools should open, businesses should get up and going, and the economy should rebuild. As Texas’s lieutenant governor Dan Patrick said to Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson in March, grandparents should be willing to contract coronavirus for the U.S. to “get back to work.”

The coronavirus has brought the Republican narrative up against reality. Just 32% of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, and only 38% of the country think the economy is good. Americans believe that the government should have done a better job managing the pandemic, and they do not believe they should risk their lives for the economy.

To try to deflect attention from the failure of his approach to the coronavirus, Trump is once, again, escalating the narrative. He has launched an offensive against Democratic cities, trying to convince voters he is protecting them from "violent anarchists" coddled by Democrats. He is using federal law enforcement officers in unprecedented ways, not to quell protests, but to escalate them. In Portland, Oregon, as officers have used tear gas, less-than-lethal munitions (which nonetheless fractured a man’s skull), and batons to attack protesters, the events, which had fallen to a few hundred attendees, grew again into the thousands. And now the administration is planning to send in more officers, to escalate further.

The Republicans’ ideology is also making it impossible for them to deal with the economy. We are on the verge of a catastrophe as the $600 weekly federal bonus attached to state unemployment benefits runs out this week just as the moratorium on evictions for an inability to pay rent ends. At the same time, state and local budgets, hammered by the pandemic, will mean more layoffs.

The House passed a $3 trillion bill in May to address these issues, along with providing more money to combat the coronavirus, but Republicans in the Senate rejected it out of hand. Today on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) went back to his ideological roots. “The only objective Democrats have is to defeat Donald Trump, and they've cynically decided the best way to defeat Donald Trump is shut down every business in America, shut down every school in America," he said. House Speaker "Nancy Pelosi talks about working men and women. What she's proposing is keeping working men and women from working." "Her objectives are shoveling cash at the problem and shutting America down.”

Instead, both Trump and Cruz want a payroll tax cut, which will do little to stimulate the economy since the tens of millions who have lost their jobs would not see any money, and this late in the year much of the tax has already been paid. But the payroll tax cut is popular among Republican ideologues because it funds Social Security and Medicare. Cut it, and those programs take a hit.

Today Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin took to the Sunday talk shows to try to reassure people that the Republicans would, in fact, manage to cobble together a relief bill in the next few days (after not writing one in the last two months). They are talking about passing piecemeal measures, but, recognizing that this means Republicans will call all the shots, Pelosi says no.

Meadows and Mnuchin say they want liability protection for businesses and schools if they open and people get Covid-19. They were also clear they would not agree to extending the $600 federal addition to state unemployment benefits, arguing that it simply “paid people to stay home.” They say they want to guarantee people 70% of their wages, but the reason the earlier bill had a flat $600 payment was because it appeared impossible for states to administer a complicated program based on a percentage, so this might well just be a straw argument.

The Republican approach to handling the coronavirus and the economy is apparently not to turn to our government, but to put our heads down, go on as usual, and hope for a vaccine. What will end the pandemic is “not masks. It’s not shutting down the economy," Meadows said. “Hopefully it is American ingenuity that will allow for therapies and vaccines to ultimately conquer this.”

[your-curatorial-convivialist]

July 26, 2020, Heather Cox Richardson*

Reality is disrupting the ideology of today’s Republican Party.

For a generation, Republicans have tried to unravel the activist government under which Americans have lived since the 1930s, when Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt created a government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and invested in infrastructure. From the beginning, that government was enormously popular. Both Republicans and Democrats believed that the principle behind it—that the country worked best when government protected and defended ordinary Americans—was permanent.

But the ideologues who now control the Republican Party have always wanted to get rid of this New Deal state and go back to the world of the 1920s, when businessmen ran the government. They believe that government regulation and taxation is an assault on their liberty, because it restricts their ability to make money.

They have won office not by convincing Americans to give up their own government benefits—most Americans actually like clean water and Social Security and safe bridges—but by selling a narrative in which “Liberals” are trying to undermine the country by stealing the tax dollars of hardworking Americans—quietly understood to be white men—and redistributing them to lazy people who want handouts, not-so-quietly understood to be people of color and feminist women. According to this narrative, legislation that protects ordinary Americans simply redistributes wealth. It is “socialism,” or “communism.”

Meanwhile, Republican policies have actually redistributed wealth upward. When voters began to turn against those policies, Republicans upped the ante, saying that “Liberals” were simply buying Black votes with handouts, or, as Carly Fiorina said in a 2016 debate, planning to butcher babies and sell their body parts. To make sure Republicans stayed in power, they suppressed voting by people likely to vote Democratic, and gerrymandered states so that even if Democrats won a majority of votes, they would have a minority of representatives.

This system rewarded those who moved to the right, not to the middle. It gave them Donald Trump as a 2016 candidate, who talked of Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists and treated women not as equals but as objects either for sex or derision.

And, although as a candidate Trump talked about making taxes fairer, improving health care, and helping those struggling economically, in fact as president he has done more to bring about the destruction of the New Deal state than most of his predecessors. He has slashed regulations, given a huge tax cut to the wealthy, and gutted the government.

If the end of the New Deal state is going to usher in a new era of peace and prosperity, it should be now.

Instead, the gutting of our government destroyed our carefully constructed pandemic response teams and plans, leaving America vulnerable to the coronavirus. Pressed to take the lead on combatting the virus, the administration refused to use federal power, and instead relied on “public-private partnerships” which meant states were largely on their own. When governors tried to take over, the Republican objection to government regulation, cultivated over a generation, had people refusing to wear masks or follow government instructions.

As the rest of the world watches in horror, we have suffered more than 4 million infections, and are approaching 150,000 deaths.

The pandemic also crashed the economy as businesses shut down to avoid infections. It threw more than 20 million Americans out of work. Republican ideology says the government has no business supporting ordinary Americans: they should work to survive, even if that means they have to take the risk of contracting Covid-19. Schools should open, businesses should get up and going, and the economy should rebuild. As Texas’s lieutenant governor Dan Patrick said to Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson in March, grandparents should be willing to contract coronavirus for the U.S. to “get back to work.”

The coronavirus has brought the Republican narrative up against reality. Just 32% of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, and only 38% of the country think the economy is good. Americans believe that the government should have done a better job managing the pandemic, and they do not believe they should risk their lives for the economy.

To try to deflect attention from the failure of his approach to the coronavirus, Trump is once, again, escalating the narrative. He has launched an offensive against Democratic cities, trying to convince voters he is protecting them from "violent anarchists" coddled by Democrats. He is using federal law enforcement officers in unprecedented ways, not to quell protests, but to escalate them. In Portland, Oregon, as officers have used tear gas, less-than-lethal munitions (which nonetheless fractured a man’s skull), and batons to attack protesters, the events, which had fallen to a few hundred attendees, grew again into the thousands. And now the administration is planning to send in more officers, to escalate further.

The Republicans’ ideology is also making it impossible for them to deal with the economy. We are on the verge of a catastrophe as the $600 weekly federal bonus attached to state unemployment benefits runs out this week just as the moratorium on evictions for an inability to pay rent ends. At the same time, state and local budgets, hammered by the pandemic, will mean more layoffs.

The House passed a $3 trillion bill in May to address these issues, along with providing more money to combat the coronavirus, but Republicans in the Senate rejected it out of hand. Today on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) went back to his ideological roots. “The only objective Democrats have is to defeat Donald Trump, and they've cynically decided the best way to defeat Donald Trump is shut down every business in America, shut down every school in America," he said. House Speaker "Nancy Pelosi talks about working men and women. What she's proposing is keeping working men and women from working." "Her objectives are shoveling cash at the problem and shutting America down.”

Instead, both Trump and Cruz want a payroll tax cut, which will do little to stimulate the economy since the tens of millions who have lost their jobs would not see any money, and this late in the year much of the tax has already been paid. But the payroll tax cut is popular among Republican ideologues because it funds Social Security and Medicare. Cut it, and those programs take a hit.

Today Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin took to the Sunday talk shows to try to reassure people that the Republicans would, in fact, manage to cobble together a relief bill in the next few days (after not writing one in the last two months). They are talking about passing piecemeal measures, but, recognizing that this means Republicans will call all the shots, Pelosi says no.

Meadows and Mnuchin say they want liability protection for businesses and schools if they open and people get Covid-19. They were also clear they would not agree to extending the $600 federal addition to state unemployment benefits, arguing that it simply “paid people to stay home.” They say they want to guarantee people 70% of their wages, but the reason the earlier bill had a flat $600 payment was because it appeared impossible for states to administer a complicated program based on a percentage, so this might well just be a straw argument.

The Republican approach to handling the coronavirus and the economy is apparently not to turn to our government, but to put our heads down, go on as usual, and hope for a vaccine. What will end the pandemic is “not masks. It’s not shutting down the economy," Meadows said. “Hopefully it is American ingenuity that will allow for therapies and vaccines to ultimately conquer this.”

*Heather Cox Richardson is an American historian and Professor of History at Boston College, where she teaches courses on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, the American West, and the Plains Indians. She previously taught at MIT and the University of Massachusetts.

[molly-writes]

Cory Booker

I'm going to start with it's good to see that all the candidates and not old straight white guys.

Opposed Brett Kavanaugh. That earns him major brownie points with me.

Criminal justice positions:

Abolish death penalty. End cash bail. Remove the sentencing differences between powder and crystal cocaine sentences. Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences. Eliminate private prisons. No bad here. I'll agree to all of it.

Election security:

Go back to paper. While I question Andrew Yang's idea to go to block chain, I don't see this as being much better. (I already vote on paper but it's counted electronically). Back tracking to lower grade tech is only going to make this take longer.

Economy:

Affordable housing:

EW says subsidize construction. Kamala and Andrew say subsidize the end user: renters and home owners.

Cory(and Julián Castro, but he's not going to November as yet) says do both.

Income inequality:

Raise taxes on wealthy and create new social programs. Along with Bern and EW, this is only trumped by Andrew Yang's UBI for this item. Kamala Harris says expand tax benefits for middle/lower class, but taxes for that bracket are already so hopelessly complex that most of them end up paying for someone to help them with it.

Minimum wage:

Andrew Yang is "leave it up to the states, and Tom Sayer is unalligned (big surprise), everyone else is "yeah let's raise it." But can we talk about a maximum wage?

Paid leave:

Most everyone is on board with a broad paid leave initiative. Andrew Yang has only stated support for leave with new parents, and Joe and Tom (big surprise) haven't made a position on known.

Reparations:

With the 400th anniversary of the first arrival of slaves here, this is a big issue. Tom Steyer has not made a position known, every one else says let's study this.

College debt:

There are a lot of positions here. Tom has avoided all of them. They range from "college should be free"(Bern, EW) to "college shouldn't be free"(Andrew Yang) with Biden opting for two years free ride, and the somewhat more ambiguous "students should not have to take on debt to go to school," that Cory, Kamala and Pete share.

He's also onboard to fix or expand current college debt relief.

Campaign finance reform:

Everyone BUT Tom has signed on for campaign finance reform. Front runners are refusing PAC donations. These guys are limiting their spending (although it's still a multi million dollar Enterprise)

Climate:

Supports nuclear power. End drilling off shore and on government land.

Farming:

Bern and EW are going for breaking up the agribusinesses. Cory and Joe are less forceful with "tighten enforcement of current laws" every one else has not given a position.

Guns:

Mandatory buyback. Universal background check. Federal gun licences. All in all, not a position of trust. I don't like it, and I don't think it will help anything.

Healthcare:

Abortion: few if any limits.

ACA: rethink the system

Medicare for all:if we can, but expanding current coverage would be ok if we can't.

Drug costs: international reference pricing!?!

DACA: citizenship for dreamers, repeal the statue that makes it illegal to cross the border without the government check in.

Marijuana:

Legalize. Joe said "decriminalize" and Tom (no surprise) has not given an opinion. Everyone else is for it.

Military:

Expand spending. Keep troops deployed.

Taxes:

Increase capital gains tax. reverse 2017 corporate tax rate cut. Expand EITC. Increase wealth taxes. All point that desperately need to happen.

In conclusion I would support Cory Booker except for his position on guns. I think it's a step too far. 4/8

[phroyd]

Democrats criticized the legislation, originally known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, but officially called An Act to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Titles II and V of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2018, but Republicans defended the law as a necessary overhaul to previous tax laws and a means to provide economic relief for the middle class.

The dueling partisan narratives left many taxpayers with a murky understanding of the law’s impact.

To gain a better grasp on the intricacies of the 2017 Act, professors David Kamin, Lily Batchelder, and Daniel Shaviro—tax law experts from the New York University School of Law—cowrote a paper analyzing the sweeping legislation which appears in the Minnesota Law Review.

According to the authors, “Many of the new changes fundamentally undermine the integrity of the tax code and allow well-advised taxpayers to game the new rules through strategic planning.”

Here, the authors describe how some may take advantage of the new system, and how changes to the tax laws may affect the US economy.

‘CRACKING AND PACKING’

David Kamin: One of the largest tax cuts in the legislation goes to “pass-through” businesses—where income is taxed at the level of the owner rather than the business. But, to be eligible for this tax cut, owners need to meet certain very complex criteria.

For those with higher incomes, this includes being in the “right” line of business. That means being an architect (eligible) and not a lawyer (not eligible). Selling skincare products (eligible) but not being a dermatologist (not eligible). The formalistic and largely arbitrary lines then allow for much gaming, including what we—borrowing from the election law context—call “cracking and packing,” pulling apart and combining businesses.

For instance, a dermatologist office might “crack” apart a skincare products business run out of the same office, share overhead expenses, and then try to assign as much of those overhead expenses as possible to the dermatology practice to maximize profits eligible for the deduction. Possibly abusive? Yes, but very hard for the IRS to catch.

Lily Batchelder: The bill creates large incentives for the wealthy to convert their labor income into business income. This was already an issue in the tax code because of the carried interest loophole and loopholes in the payroll tax. But the bill makes a bad situation much, much worse.

If a wealthy individual hires an elite tax advisor to make their labor income look like pass-through business income, they can cut their marginal tax rate by more than 7 percentage points. And if they don’t need to spend the income anytime soon and treat it as corporate income, they can cut their tax rate by 20 percentage points.

Theoretically, middle class families could engage in the same games but they are much less likely to do so for at least three reasons. First, middle class families would receive much smaller tax benefits from such gaming and in many cases, none. Second, they often have little leverage over their employers to restructure their compensation and, even if they did, probably would have to give up all of their employee benefits in exchange. This includes their health insurance, 401(k), and disability insurance. Last, they are less likely to be able to afford a tax advisor with the expertise to structure this kind of arrangement in the first place!

GAMING THE SYSTEM

Daniel Shaviro: One of the many disappointing aspects of the 2017 act was its failure to address the opportunities for sheltering labor income from tax at full individual rates, through use of the corporate tax. Pre-2017, the top corporate rate was far closer to the top individual rate than it is post-2017. The main rationale for the corporate rate reduction pertained to global tax competition for scarce capital. This has no bearing on the case where the owner-employee of a corporation pays herself far less than the market value of her work.

For example, suppose I create a wildly successful new start-up and pay myself zero salary, despite my becoming, in net worth terms, a billionaire via the stock appreciation. The income that my efforts yield will show up in the corporate tax base, and be taxed at only 21 percent. True, I would face a second level of tax on paying myself dividends or selling my stock, but even this would be at a reduced rate. And what’s more, I may not need to make such payments if I am sufficiently financially liquid, e.g., by reason of borrowing against the value of the stock.

Opinions in the “biz” differ on how frequently taxpayers will find it worthwhile to do this, given the difficulty of extracting funds from one’s company tax-free. What is plain, however, is that Congress in 2017 deliberately did nothing to prevent this from happening. Indeed, the final version of the 2017 Act reduced the efficacy of a provision in the House bill that would have slightly addressed the problem by setting the tax rate for “personal service corporations” (PSCs) at 25 percent rather than just 21 percent. In the final act that rate is just 21 percent, like the general corporate rate, causing the PSC rules to be close to meaningless as a defense against using corporations as a tax shelter for labor income.

Shaviro: In the international realm, the 2017 Act may actually have improved the law marginally. At a minimum, it created a new regime that could be tweaked by future Congresses to yield a better system than the previous one. However, the main new international rules that it added to the code unnecessarily created multiple opportunities for game-playing. Just to give some quick examples without getting too deep into the weeds:

The foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) rules, which provide a special deduction for exports by companies, such as Apple and Facebook, that have valuable intellectual property, create incentives for “round-tripping” goods—e.g., selling them to a foreign taxpayer, then buying them back with just enough bells and whistles to prevent the entire transaction from being disregarded.

Both FDII and the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) rules can create incentives to locate business assets abroad rather than at home.

The base erosion anti-avoidance tax (BEAT) can be gamed through such means as restructuring supply chains so one is purchasing sale items for customers from one’s foreign affiliates. The BEAT can also be gamed by adding lots of extra deductions (offset by lots of extra income so the sum total is a wash), so that so-called “base erosion tax benefits” will fall below an arbitrary “floor” (as a percentage of total deductions) that the BEAT imposes for no discernible reason.

VIOLATING THE WTO TREATY?

Shaviro: The FDII rules almost certainly violate the World Tax Organization treaty, of which the US is a signatory. They are expressly an export subsidy, and the WTO makes export subsidies illegal. If other treaty signatories challenge the FDII rules, there is a very high probability that they’ll be held illegal, with the consequence that peer countries will be authorized to respond with targeted provisions of their own.

In the last 30 or so years, the US has enacted illegal export subsidy rules on three separate occasions. Each time the rule was held violative and the US backed down. Why do this again? I think the main answer was cynicism, but ironically the prospect of an overturn makes the US companies that wanted favorable tax treatment more leery than they would otherwise have been of setting up complex structures to take maximum advantage of the FDII rules.

‘AN ARRAY OF MISTAKES’

Kamin: The legislation was written at an extremely rapid clip, leaving an array of mistakes—some minor and some large. An early one to emerge was the “grain glitch.” In attempting to apply the pass-through deduction to businesses organized as cooperatives, especially prevalent in agriculture, legislators wrote in an even larger loophole by accident. Effectively, farmers selling to these cooperatives (think Ocean Spray cranberries) could potentially entirely wipe out their tax liability because of the glitch.

This one was large enough—and was causing sufficient chaos in the agricultural sector—that it was fixed. But most haven’t been. So, take another: one of the largest revenue raisers in the legislation was limiting the deductibility of state and local taxes for individuals to $10,000. However, the letter of the law seems to fail to apply that to another form of cooperative, a housing cooperative.

So, owners of pricey cooperatives in NYC may be able to deduct their property taxes without limit; by contrast, owners of traditional condominiums and houses will not. And the list could go on.

MAJOR TAKEAWAYS

Batchelder: The bill is heavily tilted towards the wealthy. According to the official Congressional budget scorekeepers, this year the average millionaire will get a tax cut of more than $27,000 on their personal tax return, compared to a tax cut of $431 for an average middle-class family earning $40,000 to $50,000. Even as a share of their after-tax income, the tax cut for the average millionaire is three times as large.

It is also a very costly bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will increase our national debt by $1.9 trillion by 2028, even after including its effects on the economy. These large tax cuts will eventually have to be paid for. If Congress pays for them by raising revenues in proportion to income, the vast majority of middle class and low-income families will end up worse off. These families will be hit even harder if the bill is paid for by cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Shaviro: It’s often said that tax legislation should be judged by four main criteria: fairness, efficiency, complexity, and revenue adequacy. The 2017 Act, despite having good particular rules here and there, egregiously failed on all four counts.

It was an act of class warfare benefiting those at the top relative to everyone else, for the most part it reduced economic efficiency by creating perverse incentives and arbitrary distinctions between different activities, it made tax planning more complicated for those who can afford sophisticated tax advice, and it will probably lose on the order of $2 trillion of net revenue over 10 years, even if all supposedly expiring provisions are actually allowed to expire.

It was also the sloppiest, most poorly drafted tax legislation that I have ever seen, despite all the talent and effort deployed by hard-pressed staffers, because the process was so secretive and rushed.

Source: New York University

Phroyd

[mycrofts-sword-gunbrella]

Prequel to The Syncode: Part 1

                             First Meetings, Flights and Arrivals                                            

                     Joanne Hartwell had never flown in a private jet before. Julian had promised her a little adventure into his world of secrets, MI6 and its equivalent, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service.

She wished more than anything that Julian could be here to share in the sumptuous surroundings of his luxury gulf stream. She missed him and their lively conversations they'd have when he'd return for a few weeks to his vacation home at Patos in the north Puget Sound - one of the many islands in the San Juan archipelago.

Due to the politics and intrigue Julian was currently embroiled in, he'd had to remain in Australia with ears on the ground as to who had infiltrated the top ranks of both the British and Australian Intelligence. He suspected it was more than one person, who was possibly working for a cabal or other secret network. True to form, he had made Joanne sign the Official Secrets Act; dear friend that she was, state secret knowledge of this magnitude needed to be in writing. He was quite the stickler for rules.

Still, the fact remained that nobody in the ASIS or the British SIS could be trusted. It was with her alone that he sent the top secret letter to give to his cousin Mycroft Holmes, head of British Security Services, and was now sending her across the Atlantic to meet him in London.

The trip would be a short one due to the potential danger Joanne could be in should she be found out. She was to meet Mycroft at The Langham hotel to hand off the letter.

   Settling down to lunch, she spread a fine linen napkin over her lap and tucked into the tasty salad, pasta marinara and fine wine. Joanne couldn't wrap her head around all this wealth. She had known Julian was well off, but not to this extent. Although a practical man, his tastes ran toward the elegant and refined. The polished table and sideboard gleamed, the scent of the freshly cut flowers sublime. Knowing she would probably never again be surrounded by such luxury, Joanne intended to enjoy this to the fullest.

           Savoring the exquisite cabernet sauvignon (over $2,000 a bottle!), she sank into the soft leather seat, her mind melting into sensory overload.

Diagnosed around age five with Synesthesia, life was an interesting, but not always a pleasant one. Some things, like the sweet, smooth wine she currently sipped, the colorful fragrance of the flowers, and the zesty full bodied pasta sauce, were wonderful to her senses. Colors and textures abounded.

When those senses crossed, colors were smelt and tasted, and impressions of everyday life were filtered and focused into her brain in ways she could not put into words. Touch was also affected, but to a lesser extent: Most objects could somehow be physically felt by only looking at them. Visually, letters and numbers were assigned their own various shades of color.

The auditory faculties gave her the most trouble. Sounds, as well as smells, had texture, weight and color, which could be hard to endure, especially in a city or large town. Joanne couldn't set foot in one without earphones and music to neutralize the noise and physical unpleasantness.           

It was this very curse, or, as it turned out, gift, that was the cause for her current trip to London. Looking out the window, Joanne’s mind drifted back to the first time she had met Julian, a little over a year ago. 

*****************************************************************

             The couple ahead of her paused, stopping to look at something on the man's phone. Joanne slowed, debating whether to venture into the street and pass them, or wait. The bus to work was due in 4 minutes, and she wasn't in the mood to watch their romantic antics. Love, or the lack of it, had been on Joanne's mind lately.

She would be 46 in less than five months, and sensed time for that kind of thing was running out. What decent looks she possessed were fading by the year. It really was true, that on reaching middle age and beyond, some women wanted to find a mate; someone to take care of them, to grow old with and to not be alone in their later years.  Being fiercely independent, Jo had scoffed at the idea. Yet lately on her brisk walks around the local trails, it seemed there was no avoiding couples and lovers, both young and old. Would she ever find someone? Considering she was a real homebody and never went out except for work, invigorating walks around the neighborhood and visits to the local park, it seemed unlikely.

    Most days, she sat under the pine tree at the park with the geese. They were her only friends. Jo preferred the company of the birds to humans, especially after interacting with patients and co workers for hours on end.

It was very calming to rub her cheek against their soft, smooth plumage while they were otherwise occupied eating out of the treat bag. Each one had a different scent. One smelled like creosote, another like Lilacs, yet another like sunscreen. Joanne figured it was her Synesthesia playing with her senses, but still, it was wonderful. On cold days, she would slip her hands under their wings to keep warm. It felt like being enveloped in a warm down coat, the colors in her mind soft and fuzzy, subdued and calming. She'd been coming to this park for years, and all the geese knew her. As far as Joanne could tell, she was the only one they would let pet and hug them. In spring, the parents would nudge their goslings over to her. How many generations were there, now? She'd lost count.

            Watching the parked cars across the small pond, Joanne wondered who sat inside them; it was usually the same cars day in and day out on their lunch breaks. Who were they? Possibly single and also looking for someone? Her hopes were dashed when the doors would open and a couple would emerge, or a family would tumble out, the kids running over to the nearby playground. The few men that were alone were either too old or too young.  Resigned to her fate, she squared her shoulders and checked for oncoming cars, quickly hurrying past the mincing couple. They barely glanced at her as she rushed by.  

   Arriving at work, she checked the schedule to see when the last patient would be. The list was short, the patients spaced out by half an hour or more. Still, if all went well, there would indeed be time for a few quick laps around the block.

The afternoon went by quickly, each patient needing something extra, it seemed. An xray here, a layered compression cast there. The doctor was beginning to run behind, when her boss, Dr. Packman’s wife, informed her of an end of the day walk in, and a new patient, no less. So much for that walk. Still, with the rent going up astronomically every year, Joanne wasn't complaining, and coveted any extra hours provided.  The Packman’s had been good to her for the five years she had worked there, had been spoiled in fact. She owed them much.  

   The last scheduled patient was leaving when the new one arrived. Joanne was cleaning and preparing the exam room when she heard a deep, booming voice come from the reception area. The accent was Australian, yet, there was a very definite underlying British one.

        She heard the patient retire to the waiting room to fill out the new patient paperwork. Burning curiosity brought Joanne out to the front desk, who peered over the counter at the new arrival. Another man sat with him as they quietly conversed. 

He was a big man; not fat in the conventional way, but large boned, and tall. She estimated him to be at least six five. He was elegance personified, impeccably dressed in a dark three piece suit, complete with a silk handkerchief and double Albert chain attached most likely to an old fashioned watch fob hidden inside the waistcoat pocket.

Dark hair thinning at the top and with slight jowls, the man looked to be in his early to mid sixties. Sensing her gaze, he glanced up at her. Piercing dark brown eyes bore into hers. Deep intelligence glittered in their depths, and something else, as though he could read her mind. There was something almost Middle Eastern about his features, yet his skin was as pale as an Englishman's. This was a new one for Jo, who could usually tell where a person was from, based on either accent or physical characteristics. He seemed to encompass both. She glanced down at the penciled in name on the schedule: Julian Holmes. 

His companion was also well dressed, but not as extravagant as her patient. His bearing and speech to Julian Holmes was as a subordinate or employee.

   Time seemed to stretch like melted taffy as she thought of something to say. Who was this man? No one of this caliber ever came to the clinic. Usually the clientele were Medicare patients, as well as the occasional retired doctor and everything in between. This was someone outside of normal social circles, and she couldn't wait to find out more about him. The reason for his visit never even crossed her mind, until she saw how he was holding his right foot. Even from across the room, she could tell it was painful for him.

Misinterpreting her curiosity for impatience, he stated drily, "Almost done. I am sorry to keep you so late this evening, I imagine you are ready to go home." His voice was deep and sonorous, cultured and refined.

The receptionist had left for the day an hour earlier,  and the boss had gone downstairs to her office after checking him in. Her co worker was long gone, having been the opening MA that day, and the doctor was in his back office typing away at chart notes. It was just Joanne, this intriguing man, and his companion.

    Signing the last of the paperwork, he slowly stood and came over to the desk. "Back in a tic, Henry", he called, looking over his shoulder to the seated man, who bowed his head curtly in acknowledgement and resumed texting.

"I believe you will find everything in order", Julian stated, sliding the papers across the counter. Considering how impeccably he was dressed and well groomed, she didn't doubt it. Just his attention to the smallest details of his wardrobe was astounding.

His expensive cologne also drifted over. Subtly spicy, the scent flashed colors and textures through her mind: A dark red with subtle indigo, smooth with small gritty points of yellow sprinkled throughout.  It was exquisite.

Barely glancing at the paperwork, she nodded, suddenly shy. "Yes, looks fine. Come on back." Opening the door, she was about to lead him down the hall to the exam room, when she paused. "Would you like to bring your friend back with you?", she asked.

He shook his massive head in the negative. "No need. That is my assistant Henry, who sees to my transportation needs." She nodded to Henry in greeting, who looked up and smiled briefly before returning to his phone. Joanne took her patient back.

Although clean, she realized the rooms and the small clinic in general, must have appeared very homely and economic compared to what he was normally used to. It was all somewhat daunting. How had he ended up here? 

Taking a deep breath, she was determined to stay focused. "How're you this evening? She gestured to the podiatric chair. "Go ahead and have a seat in the chair of honor!” Normally her attempt at humor would crack a smile on the face of even the most reticent of her patients. Not so with this taciturn man. His sense of humor was either nonexistent or very dry. “Also, please remove your shoes and socks. What brings you in tonight?"

Slowly, the man named Julian Cambridge lowered himself into the chair next to the one she had indicated. "I'll pop up there in one moment. It is difficult to bend down these days," he said, indicating his shoes.  She couldn't imagine this man 'popping' off anywhere.

"Do you need help removing them?" she asked. He impatiently shook his head, looking slightly affronted. "I may be getting on in years, but I've not reached that point yet. Tell me, do I look in need of assistance?" Although stated politely, there was an undercurrent of indignation. His dark eyes flashed.

Startled, Joanne backed away. "No offence meant, really! It's just, I always ask.. as a courtesy..", she faltered.

"To elderly persons, you mean?", he added somewhat testily.

"I.." She trailed off. What could she say? This was going sideways very fast. Focusing on his current problem, her mind went on autopilot as she peppered him with medical questions.

Shoes and socks removed, he settled his large frame into the exam chair. "Lift up for me?", she asked, indicating his long legs that stretched far beyond the chairs edge. Shifting a lever, the bottom half was pulled out to extend it. Tipping him back using the foot peddle, Joanne continued on. "Any history of gout?", she asked, noting the red, swollen first toe.

"As a matter of fact, yes. That is what brings me in tonight. As you can see, it is incredibly painful". He almost winced as Joanne lightly felt the heated skin with the back of her hand.  Scribbling down notes, she continued the obligatory questions while glancing at his paperwork.  Age of 61. Unmarried.  Local address on one of the San Juan islands up the Sound. Employment: Civil Servant. Hmm. Interesting.

Julian' sharp eyes missed nothing. He seemed to be studying her as much as she was him. Sensing what she was thinking, he said, "I live in Australia, but make my home on Patos Island during the summer months. As you can see, the heat does not agree with my condition."

"You live on Patos Island? I didn't know there were any homes there. It's all owned by the Bureau of Land Management, if I remember right. Nice island, but all wilderness."

"Ah. Well, some years ago, I purchased the island from your government. There is only one home there currently - mine. Of course, it's closed to the public now. It's private and quite suitable."

"No way! You OWN the entire island?!" Jo couldn't help gawping. Some of her patients did indeed live on the San Juan's, but none actually owned a whole island.

Julian smiled, amused by her reaction. "A man in my occupation likes a bit of peace and quiet. I obtained it at a discount. "

"How'd you do that? Our gov isn't exactly known for that kind of thing."

A rich, baritone laugh suddenly erupted from his expansive chest. "Connections my dear girl. I know many people in your government, and some of them owe me favors." His reserved demeanor returned once more. 

She could only stare wide eyed at him. His check in complete, it was time to let the doctor know he was ready. And yet, the more she learned of this mysterious man, the more she wanted to know.

One thing was certain: There was an authoritative and possibly dangerous air about him. Whatever position this man held, most likely a senior one, he was not one to be crossed. Julian Holmes was perhaps the most intimidating man she had ever met. And fascinating.

"How did you find out about us?  I would have thought there would be podiatrist somewhere nearby on one of the larger islands."

"There is not. The one on the nearest island retired, apparently. I met one of your prior patients in a small supermarket on Orcas Island. It's the nearest grocers to Patos. After noting my bothersome foot, he commented that I should see a podiatrist, and yours came highly recommended."

It was true, a few patient of theirs currently lived or had retired up to the various San Juan islands. It was a small world, indeed.

Joanne wondered about his 'connections' in the government. Civil Servant, it had said on his occupation description. Definitely Australian government. How had he even found Patos? Who exactly was he connected with, and how high up did they go? How high in the upper echelons was this man? She had to know.

"What is your job, if you don't mind my asking? What kind of work does a civil servant entail?” Joanne indicated the registration form. “You can tell me if I'm being too forward. It's just, you are unlike anyone that's ever come to our clinic before.." Afraid she had been too bold, she held her breath, praying his temporary good humor wouldn't evaporate. It didn't.

"Ah!", said he, still chuckling. "You know much more about me at the moment, and you've yet to tell me your name." The man was evasive, she gave him that!

"It's Joanne.."

He raised an eyebrow, silently entreating her to continue.

"Hartwell," she finished. "'The Average' Jo to my friends."

"Well, Miss 'Average Jo to my friends Hartwell', it is very nice to meet you. I assume you've surmised mine," he noted, glancing at the paper and back to her. 

 A wide grin spread across her face. "Why yes. Yes I did!" 

She liked this man. Reserved and dour at first, he slowly opened up to her. Joanne detected a certain loneliness about him. Having worked over twenty years in the medical field, she had come across many like him. No matter their job, they were usually loners outside of work, and not quick to trust people. Oh yes, she knew this kind quite well. It took one to know one. He seemed to sense this, and was possibly thinking the same.

           Not wanting to keep him here later than he needed to be, she went to inform Dr. Packman that he was ready. Still furiously typing out a prior patients' note, he barely nodded and indicated he would be in shortly. Joanne quickly rushed back to her patient.

"He's just finishing a chart note, and will be in shortly. Hey, I notice you seem to have both an Australian accent and a British one. I could be wrong.. I always like guessing where folks are from with their accents, but yours is different!"

Julian looked surprised and taken aback. At first she thought she had (again) offended him, but there was nothing but a keen interest on his face now.

"Really? You picked up on that?” Smoothly evading her question, he asked a few of his own. “Tell me, do you know any foreign languages? You appear have an ear for it".

"Well.. I learned Italian when I was stationed in Naples. Was in the Navy for 12 years before I had to get out for my back." (In truth she had gotten herself kicked out, having taken a drug that she shouldn't have, but her bad back had played a part in why she had had to take it. There was no way she would admit any of this to him). Joanne sensed he knew she was holding something of importance back. Luckily, he didn't press the issue.

"I also learned the Russian alphabet," she continued,  "and the Greek, as it's the parent to the Cyrillic, so it wasn't too hard. During my stay there, I'd gone to both Russia and Greece, and figured I should at least learn how to read it, even if I didn't know what I was actually reading. Unless it sounded like English phonetically, I had no clue!"

He looked at her, curious. "And how long did it take to learn them?"

"A few days."

Julian's eyes widened, studying her intently. "Yet you say you did not actually learn them. Only how to read the written texts."

"That's correct. I wanted to, but figured it wasn't worth my time as I'd only be in each place a week. Still, I liked the music, especially Greek. I still read it, and YouTube the videos with subtitles. Also the cursive."

"And Italian. You spoke the language, then?"

"Yes, it was easy once I learned how each letter or pair of them are pronounced. Like 'CH' is pronounced with a hard 'K' sound, not like CH in say, chips."

"And it took you how long?" The intensity of his gaze was unnerving. It was as though he were deeply considering something. What, she couldn't fathom.

"Ah, well, I didn't really apply myself too hard. I worked at the Naval Hospital, so everyone including the Italians spoke English there. It was only when I moved out into town that I really buckled down on it. Probably a month or so, and even then, it wasn't that good, but ok enough to get around. It’s only when totally immersed in a language that I can learn it fully, and since I wasn't, well.. it was a bit broken."

Julian's hands were steepled under his chin as he gazed at her, his thoughts turning inward. She remembered her earlier question.

"So, how is it that your accent both British and Australian? Or am I wrong?"

           He was about to reply, when the Podiatrist walked in, thus ending their engaging conversation. It would have to wait, but by then, the visit would be over and he would be wanting to get home.

It was this last thought that made her wonder how he was getting home. Patos Island was a good three or more hours by ferry, at least. She had taken the Victoria Clipper to British Columbia a few times; it was almost a two hour ride. This island was farther north than even Victoria. She needn't have worried, though.

"I have a marine vehicle waiting at the Edmond docks," he said, rapidly texting something into his phone.  "My assistant is calling a cab as we speak. "

Marine vehicle?  What kind? She couldn't imagine the man in a speed boat.

Reading the question in her eyes, he stated simply: "Just a small boat to get about around the islands."  Enigmatic indeed.

The diagnosis of gout was confirmed by ultrasound, as well as mild arthritis in the joints of the foot and ankle. A repeat visit would be required for the gout, as well as a cortisone injection for the ankle at a later date, after the gouty flare up subsided. A soft cast would be needed both today and again at his next visit to keep the swelling under control.

Joanne was applying the wrap when the doctor walked back in, telling her to schedule a follow up for Julian in a week. For some reason, this made her very happy. Julian hid a small smile as well.

Joanne led him out the connecting door to the waiting room. The assistant Henry was still texting on his phone.  She suspected he did more than just see to Julian's transportation.

About to hand him a reminder card, Julian waved a large but elegant hand, the cufflinks on his sleeve gleaming.  "No need for that. I've memorized it, as well as the phone number of this office, should I need it." She had memorized the date, too.

He looked pointedly at her. "I trust I will see you again?"

"Yes, I'll be here." With bells on, she thought.

"Very well. We will continue our earlier conversation at that time, and I shall endeavor to have an answer to your earlier question. Now! Henry! I believe that is our cab." Bright lights swept the small but otherwise empty parking lot outside as the cab parked and waited.

Julian extended his hand to her as he warmly shook it. "Thank you again Miss Hartwell for yours and Dr. Packman’s excellent service. It was a pleasure, I assure you. Ma'asalama. Hataa naltaqi mujadadaan."

With that, he turned and was followed out the door by Henry. "Goodnight, Miss Hartwell", he said, hurrying after his employer.

Julian's exotic cologne lingered in the room.

They were gone before she could ask for a translation of that last line, and what Arabic dialect it was that Julian had spoken. There was still the question regarding his mingled Australian and British accents.

Another mystery surrounding this fascinating man. One and more that Joanne hoped would be solved in one weeks time.

On their next encounter, however, she was to discover that Julian knew far more about her than she realized, and that his answers would lead to even more questions.

[day0one]

Trump’s 40 Biggest Broken Promises The president talks a good game—but it’s just talk.

Trump voters. Nearly four years in, here’s an updated list of Trump’s 40 biggest broken promises.

1. He said coronavirus would “go away without a vaccine.” You bought it. But it didn’t. While other countries got the pandemic under control and avoided large numbers of fatalities, the virus has killed more than 170,000 Americans, and that number is still climbing.

2. He said he won’t have time to play golf if elected president. But he has made more than 250 visits to his golf clubs since he took office—a record for any president—including more trips during the pandemic than meetings with Dr. Fauci. The total financial cost to America? More than $136 million.

3. He said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with something “beautiful.” It didn’t happen. Instead, seven million Americans have lost their health insurance since he took office. He has asked the Supreme Court to strike down the law in the middle of a global pandemic with no plan to replace it.

More from Robert Reich

4. He said he’d cut your taxes, and that the super-rich like him would pay more. He did the opposite. By 2027, the richest 1 percent will have received 83 percent of the Trump tax cut and the richest 0.1 percent, 60 percent of it. But more than half of all Americans will pay more in taxes.

5. He said corporations would use their tax cuts to invest in American workers. They didn’t. Corporations spent more of their tax savings buying back shares of their own stock than increasing workers’ wages.

6. He said he would boost economic growth by 4 percent a year. Nope. The economy stalled, and unemployment has soared to the highest levels since the Great Depression. Just over half of working-age Americans are employed—the worst ratio in 70 years.

7. He said he wouldn’t “cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.” His latest budget includes billions in cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

8. He promised to be “the voice” of American workers. He hasn’t. His administration has stripped workers of their rights, repealed overtime protections, rolled back workplace safety rules, and turned a blind eye to employers who steal their workers’ wages.

9. He promised that the average American family would see a $4,000 pay raise because of his tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. But nothing trickled down. Wages for most Americans have barely kept up with inflation.

10. He promised that anyone who wants a test for COVID will get one. But countless Americans still can’t get a test.

11. He said hydroxychloroquine protects against coronavirus. No way. The FDA revoked its emergency authorization due to the drug’s potentially lethal side effects.

12. He promised to eliminate the federal deficit. He has increased the federal deficit by more than 60 percent.

13. He said he would hire “only the best people.” He has fired a record number of his own Cabinet and White House picks, and then called them “whackos,” “dumb as a rock,” and “not mentally qualified.” Six of them have been charged with crimes.

14. He promised to bring down the price of prescription drugs and said drug companies are “getting away with murder.” They still are. Drug prices have soared, and a company that got federal funds to develop a drug to treat coronavirus is charging $3,000 a pop.

15. He promised to revive the struggling coal industry and bring back lost coal mining jobs. The coal industry has continued to lose jobs as clean energy becomes cheaper.

16. He promised to help American workers during the pandemic. But 80 percent of the tax benefits in the coronavirus stimulus package have gone to millionaires and billionaires. And at least 21 million Americans have lost extra unemployment benefits, with no new stimulus check to fall back on.

17. He said he’d drain the swamp. Instead, he’s brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, and he’s filled departments and agencies with former lobbyists, lawyers, and consultants who are crafting new policies for the same industries they used to work for.

18. He promised to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions. His Justice Department is trying to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act, including protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

19. He said Mexico would pay for his border wall. The wall will cost American taxpayers an estimated $11 billion.

20. He promised to bring peace to the Middle East. Instead, tensions have increased and his so-called “peace plan” was dead on arrival.

21. He promised to lock up Hillary Clinton for using a private email server. He didn’t. Funny enough, Trump uses his personal cellphone for official business, and several members of his own administration, including Jared Kushner and Ivanka, have used private email in the White House.

22. He promised to use his business experience to whip the federal government into shape. He hasn’t. His White House is in permanent chaos. He caused the longest government shutdown in our nation’s history when he didn’t get funding for his wall.

23. He promised to end DACA. The Supreme Court ruled that his plan to deport 700,000 young immigrants was unconstitutional, and DACA still stands.

24. He promised “six weeks of paid maternity leave to any mother with a newborn child whose employer does not provide the benefit.” He hasn’t delivered.

25. He promised to bring an end to Kim Jong Un’s nuclear program. Kim is expanding North Korea’s nuclear program.

26. He said he would distance himself from his businesses while in office. He continues to make money from his properties and maintain his grip on his real estate empire.

27. He said he’d force companies to keep jobs in America, and that there would be consequences for companies that shipped jobs abroad. Since he took office, companies like GE, Carrier, Ford, and Harley Davidson have continued to outsource thousands of jobs while still receiving massive tax breaks. And offshoring by federal contractors has increased.

28. He promised to end the opioid crisis. Americans are now more likely to die from an opioid overdose than a car accident.

29. He said he’d release his tax returns. It’s been nearly four years. He hasn’t released his tax returns.

30. He promised to tear up the Iran nuclear deal and renegotiate a better deal. Negotiations have gone nowhere, and he brought us to the brink of war.

31. He promised to enact term limits for all members of Congress. He has not even tried to enact term limits.

32. He promised that China would pay for tariffs on imported goods. His trade war has cost U.S. consumers $34 billion a year, eliminated 300,000 American jobs, and cost American taxpayers $22 billion in subsidies for farmers hurt by the tariffs.

33. He promised to “push colleges to cut the skyrocketing cost of tuition.” Instead, he’s made it easier for for-profit colleges to defraud students, and tuition is still rising.

34. He promised to protect American steel jobs. The steel industry continues to lose jobs.

35. He promised tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would spur economic growth and pay for themselves. His tax cuts will add $2 trillion to the federal deficit.

36. After pulling out of the Paris climate accord, he said he’d negotiate a better deal on the environment. He hasn’t attempted to negotiate any deal.

37. He promised that the many women who accused him of sexual misconduct “will be sued after the election is over.” He hasn’t sued them, presumably because he doesn’t want the truth to come out.

38. He promised to bring back all troops from Afghanistan. He now says: “We’ll always have somebody there.”

39. He pledged to put America first. Instead, he’s deferred to dictators and authoritarians at America’s expense, and ostracized our allies—who now laugh at us behind our back.

40. He promised to be the voice of the common people. He’s made his rich friends richer, increased the political power of big corporations and the wealthy, and harmed working Americans. Don’t let the liar-in-chief break any more promises. Vote him out in November.

[udemy-gift-coupon-blog]

Retirement Planning Bootcamp Course ##UdemyFreeCoupon ##UdemyFreeDiscountCoupons #Bootcamp #Planning #RETIREMENT Retirement Planning Bootcamp Course IT'S NOW TIME TO PREPARE FOR YOUR RETIREMENT! ALL CLASS REGISTRANTS WILL RECEIVE A COMPLIMENTARY "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT" Learn how to: Determine the amount of money you will need to retire Decide which social security benefit is right for you Eliminate debt and improve cash flow Properly convert your IRA to a Roth IRA Select the retirement plan distribution choice that is right for you Plan your retirement income to preserve a comfortable standard of living Transfer the risk of potential financial losses before and during retirement Reduce or eliminate taxes, expenses, delays and legal challenges with Estate Planning Rollover your 401(k), 403(b), or other employer sponsored retirement plan Learn 10 strategies to save money on this year’s taxes Topics Covered: 1.  Life After Work 2.  Retirement Planning Obstacles 3.  The Impact of Taxes and Inflation 4.  Income in Retirement 5.  Retirement Plan Distributions 6.  Investment Planning 7.  Risk Management 8.  Will and Estate Planning 9.  Social Security 10.Insurance Planning and Asset Protection THE REASON RETIREMENT PLANNING EDUCATION IS VERY IMPORTANT Tax laws are ever-changing, the Social Security program is in a financial mess, and employers are ditching pension plans which puts more responsibility on us to save for our retirement. Due to these factors, being financially educated when it comes to Retirement Planning has never been as important as it is today. This course is designed to give pre-retirees and retirees a very easy to understand and easy to follow along blueprint that will help you make the best financial decisions for you and your family. This course will help you plan your retirement with absolute confidence whether your goal is to build up your retirement portfolio, protect your assets, or preserve your wealth so you can enjoy a stress free retirement. In our Retirement Planning Bootcamp Class, you will learn about the many different ways to save for retirement and you will also learn many different ways to earn income during retirement. You will also discover investment risk management strategies that you probably haven’t heard of before, how to save money on taxes, and how to protect your assets from long-term health care expenses. You are also given a FREE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT including a Health Care Proxy just for registering. Most importantly, this class will show you how to assess your current financial situation and develop your very own customized plan to help you stay on track to achieve your retirement goals. WE ARE FINANCIAL EDUCATORS - NOT FINANCIAL ADVISORS When it comes to making financial decisions, you can find information on the topic anywhere. You can also ask 10 different people a question about a specific financial topic and you may just get 10 different answers. It can be tough to decipher these opinions and use them to make important decisions when it comes to your financial future. You can get this information from a financial advisor, but financial advisors main goal is to capture “Assets Under Management”. You are those “Assets” to them. Once the course is over, be prepared to be contacted non-stop as they will attempt to bring you into their office and sell you on their services as well as high commission products where their commission may not be in line with your objectives. As Financial Educators, we do not manage assets. We do not sell products. We do not give conflicting advice. We TEACH. As an educator (and not a salesperson), our goal is to give you the most current information regarding every topic surrounding Retirement Planning. This education is 100% objective and ZERO selling of any product or service exists. When it comes to planning and making crucial decisions about retirement, it makes sense to learn from a trusted, reliable source who specializes and teaches the topic everyday WITHOUT the worry of being sold. THIS CLASS IS FOR: This class is designed for adults who are planning for their retirement whether retirement is several years away, right around the corner and even if you are recently retired. The content is relevant for those who work or have worked as an employee and those who are self employed. Whatever stage you are in, Retirement Planning Bootcamp will help you learn how to build wealth and protect your wealth so you can accomplish your financial goals and live the lifestyle you have always envisioned in retirement! COURSE AGENDA: Section One - Life After Work Defining your ideal retirement Financial resources in retirement Opportunities and responsibilities for today’s retirees Preparing your retirement plan Section Two - Retirement Planning Obstacles Common obstacles and how to avoid them Budgeting Good debt vs. bad debt Compounding interest Tax planning strategies Taxable vs tax advantaged investments Section Three - Inflation and Taxes The number one fear in retirement Early retirement and longer life expectancy Inflation, the silent robber Retirement confidence Don’t forget to include taxes How to calculate how much you will need in retirement Section Four - Income in Retirement Individual Retirement Accounts Roth IRA conversions Defined benefit vs defined contribution plans Investment income Employment income Annuity income Rental income Home equity Information age Section Five - Retirement Plan Distributions Annuity vs lump sum Single life vs joint and survivor Advantages and disadvantages IRA rollover options Cashing out can cost you dearly Comparing distribution options In-service distributions Required Minimum Distributions Section Six - Investment Planning Risk tolerance Time horizon Investment objectives Investment categories Stocks Bonds Covered calls Mutual Funds Investment fees and expenses Exchange Traded Funds Annuities Section Seven - Risk Management Strategies Types of investment risk Diversification Asset allocation Rebalancing Stop loss Dollar cost averaging Section Eight - Wills and Estate Planning Objectives for Estate Planning Wills Health Care Proxy Durable Power of Attorney Estate Taxes Probate Trust Account types Section Nine - Social Security History of Social Security Current state of Social Security Full retirement age, reduced benefits, and maximum benefits Taxation on retirement benefits Earned income and benefit reduction Spousal benefits Future of Social Security Section Ten - Insurance Planning and Asset Protection Life insurance needs Mortgage protection Income replacement College expense Final expense Whole life Term Disability Health insurance Medicare Long term care AN INSIDE LOOK INTO THE CLASS: Section One - Life After Work If tomorrow is your first day of retirement, and you don’t have to wake up and go to work, what does your ideal day look like? How about your ideal week, or month? Have you even given it much thought as to what your dream retirement looks like? Do you want to travel the world, or spend more time at home enjoying time with family, or taking up a new hobby. How about turning a hobby into an income generating business to supplement your other sources of retirement income? In order to achieve your financial goals in retirement, you need to have a clear vision of what your lifestyle will look like. Traveling the world or spending time with family are both great ways to spend time in retirement. However, they require two different levels of financial resources. In this section, we help you you figure out exactly what it is that you want to do in retirement and from there you will learn how to properly plan to meet those goals. Section Two - Retirement Planning Obstacles Mistakes can be costly. They can set you back years. In this section we explore the most common obstacles that people face while preparing for retirement and then we show you how to avoid these costly mistakes. We then cover budgeting. If you are like most people, there never seems to be enough money left over at the end of each month. In this section we give you a brief exercise to explore that will help you track all of you unnecessary spending. Once you can identify where you are spending money needlessly, you can cut-back on those items and put the extra savings into an investment plan for retirement. We also take our first dive into the subject of taxes. We cover the taxable vs tax-advantaged investments as well as several strategies to help you save money on taxes each year. Section Three - Inflation and Taxes According to a study by the Benefit Research Institute, 64% of current retirees retired by age 65 or earlier. However, the same study shows that current workers plan to retire after age 65. There is a big discrepancy between when they expect to retire and when they actually do retire. Some of the reasons why people retire earlier than expected are for reasons out of our control, therefore you might not have as long as you had hoped to to plan for retirement. In this section we show you how to plan for various scenarios such as how long your money must last and how to figure out how much money you will need to live on while factoring the impact that inflation and taxes will have on your income. Section Four - Income in Retirement In this section we discuss the various tax-deferred ways to save for retirement including employer sponsored retirement plans and IRA’s. We also cover various sources of income pre-retirement and during retirement such as pensions, Social Security, investment income, as well as other unique ways to supplement your main sources of income. Section Five - Retirement Plan Distributions Did you know that the IRS will penalize you up to 50% if you don’t take money out of your qualified retirement plans in time? That is a crazy penalty. We will show you when you have to do this to avoid this penalty as well as other ways to minimize taxes and penalties when making retirement plan withdrawals. Did you know that you could rollover your company sponsored retirement plan while you are still working for that employer?? There are a lot of options that you have when it comes to taking money out of your retirement plans before and during retirement. In this section we go over the pro’s and con’s of each option you have as well as how to avoid a very simple mistake that could cost you tens of thousands of dollars when transferring your money. We also cover the many different options you will have when selecting a monthly annuity payment from your pension. This decision is permanent and cannot be changed. We explain the different annuity payment options and the pro’s and con’s of each. Section Six - Investment Planning Bring a pen and notepad for this section because we cover a lot of ground. When it comes to retirement planning, a lot of that planning revolves around your investments. We begin this section by showing you the importance of knowing your risk tolerance, time horizon, and investment objectives. Then we move on to explore the many different types of asset classes and investment categories, such as stocks, bonds, cash, covered calls (an excellent source of income), mutual funds, exchange traded funds, separately managed accounts, and annuities. The most eye-opening part of this section is our discussion on mutual fund fees and the other various forms of unnecessary fees, where to find them, how much it will cost you (a few hundred thousand dollars on a modest size portfolio over the course of your retirement), and the more cost efficient alternatives that are available to you. Section Seven - Risk Management Strategies Now that you are familiar with the many different types of investments that you learned in Section Six, now we want you to learn how to properly manage the investment risk in your portfolio. Every asset class has risk, even cash as you learned in last section’s story about Warren Buffett. You can’t fully eliminate risk, but you can certainly control it. In this section, we will go over the many different types of risk that each asset class is exposed to and how you can minimize that risk. Some of the topics covered are Asset Allocation, Diversification, Rebalancing, and Stop Losses. Section Eight - Wills and Estate Planning 42% of Americans do not have a simple Will. As our way of saying “Thank You” for registering for our class, we give all class registrants a very detailed 18 page Last Will and Testament. If you go to an attorney to get this done, you will pay at least $500. Now that you have this Will, USE IT!!! In this section we cover the very important topic of Estate Planning. Contrary to what many believe, estate planning is not just for the wealthy. Everyone needs estate planning. The reason: If you have an estate plan, you will be able to make important decisions regarding your healthcare, your assets, minimizing taxes, providing for your family and loved ones and much more while you are living as well as after you pass away. Without an estate plan, the state courts will make these decisions for you. That is a pretty scary thought. We will go over the benefits of having a Will, the benefits of a more detailed estate plan, as well as other topics such as estate taxes and how to minimize this and probate and strategies to avoid probate. Lastly, we will cover the many types of Trusts and the advantages and purposes of each. Section Nine - Social Security This is a hot topic. The big question many of us have is “Will Social Security be there when I need it?”. We answer that question in this section. It is no surprise that the Social Security program has been in a financial mess for quite some time, and recent estimations are that the two trust funds that make up Social Security will be depleted by 2034. What does that mean for you and how will that impact your retirement? Find out in Section Nine. We also show you when you can collect your benefits and how your income will be impacted depending on what age you start to collect your benefits. Many people take their benefits early and also work part time or full time. Doing so can have a negative impact. We will show you how much you can make without impacting your retirement benefits. We also talk about taxation on your benefits, spousal benefits, and the future of Social Security. Section Ten - Insurance Planning and Asset Protection We thought it would be appropriate to end the course with this topic. The final piece to a proper retirement plan is protecting you and your assets. If you do everything right, but skip this step in the planning process, you could still experience a major financial loss that could be avoided. We begin this section by addressing the most common needs for life insurance such as income replacement for your loved ones, college tuition coverage, mortgage protection, and the cost to pay for final expenses. There are a few types of life insurance and we explain the pro’s and con’s of Whole Life and Term Insurance. Next we move on to the topic of Long-Term Care. Approximately 70% of Americans who reach retirement age will need some form of Long Term Care. We explain what this coverage is, how much it can cost as well as the major cost of doing nothing, and the expected length of time long term care will be needed. Finally, we end this section addressing the topic of health insurance and disability. WHAT TO EXPECT AND WHAT YOU WILL GET: CLASS INSTRUCTION: Retirement planning was never taught in our formal years of educations. It is up to you as an adult to take the time and learn this information. You will discover more information on the topic of Retirement Planning in our six-hour course, than most people will receive in an entire lifetime. Our instructors are qualified financial professionals who have earned the formal designation of “Retirement Planning Specialist”. CLASS OBJECTIVE: Unlike the “free dinner seminars” that you have probably been invited to (every night of the week), we do NOT sell during this class. We do NOT promote a single product like most people do at these dinner seminars. This is a 100% educational program that ties together every single aspect of retirement planning and how you need to integrate each topic to have a proper plan. Attend our class and learn how to: Create a plan to retire early Take advantage of new tax laws Make sure your retirement plan is properly allocated Take advantage of the most cost efficient investments and risk management strategies Mare sure your estate plan is current Who this course is for: This class is designed for adults who are planning for their retirement whether retirement is several years away, right around the corner and even if you are recently retired. The content is relevant for those who work or have worked as an employee and those who are self employed. Whatever stage you are in, Retirement Planning Bootcamp will help you learn how to build wealth and protect your wealth so you can accomplish your financial goals and live the lifestyle you have always envisioned in retirement! 👉 Activate Udemy Coupon 👈 Free Tutorials Udemy Review Real Discount Udemy Free Courses Udemy Coupon Udemy Francais Coupon Udemy gratuit Coursera and Edx ELearningFree Course Free Online Training Udemy Udemy Free Coupons Udemy Free Discount Coupons Udemy Online Course Udemy Online Training 100% FREE Udemy Discount Coupons https://www.couponudemy.com/blog/retirement-planning-bootcamp-course/

[unionrising]

The poor ‘just don’t want health care’

Rep. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus

“Just like Jesus said, ‘The poor will always be with us,’ ” Marshall said in response to a question about Medicaid, which expanded under Obamacare to more than 30 states. “There is a group of people that just don’t want health care and aren’t going to take care of themselves.” 

He added that “morally, spiritually, socially,” the poor, including the homeless, “just don’t want health care.”

Congressman Marshall is wrong.

A Harvard School of Public Health study published last summer shows that Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion resulted in improved health for low-income adults — and fewer ER visits. A summary of the study states: Two years after Medicaid coverage was expanded under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in their states, low-income adults in Kentucky and Arkansas received more primary and preventive care, made fewer emergency departments visits, and reported higher quality care and improved health compared with low-income adults in Texas, which did not expand Medicaid, according to a new study led by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The findings provide new evidence for states that are debating whether to expand or how to expand coverage to low-income adults.

Not only is Congressman Marshall wrong, he is also a moral monster. Writing for New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait opines: While I am not a theologian, I feel confident in asserting that Jesus’ message about the poor is not most accurately summarized as “Let them suffer, they’re animals anyway.”

Bottom line: Congressman Marshall is a sick and twisted individual. Even an atheist can see that using Jesus to justify denying healthcare to poor people is not only wrong, but perverse.

GOP health care plan built on backs of the poor

It’s time to put an end to the myth that Republicans believe in fiscal responsibility. Saving taxpayer dollars takes a back seat to the ideological imperative of blaming and shaming the poor.

The Republican plan would take away the ACA’s subsidies and replace them with refundable tax credits based on age, not income.

This means a windfall for those who are older and well-to-do. In essence, the plan would expand government assistance to encompass many who don’t really need it — in order to avoid targeting help toward those who do.

The GOP plan would also eliminate the ACA’s penalty fee for not having health insurance, which goes into the public till — and replace it with a different penalty fee that goes to the insurance companies. Apparently Republicans have no problem committing what they once called “extortion” if the benefit goes to private companies, not the common good.

Keep in mind that Trump and GOP leaders in Congress promise that after dealing with health care they will seek huge tax cuts, including for the wealthy. As fiscal policy, how does this make sense?

It doesn’t. It only makes sense as ideology. In today’s Republican Party, policies have to satisfy the belief that the less fortunate are poor by choice.

It would be one thing if the GOP’s mean-spirited ideology actually saved money, but it doesn’t. Quite the contrary, in fact.

When you ask Republicans what they’re going to cut, they mention foreign aid — which totals about $35 billion, or slightly less than 1 percent of federal spending.

They threaten to eviscerate smaller agencies by cutting $6 billion here or $8 billion there — but at the same time, they applaud Trump’s pledge to increase the $600 billion defense budget by an incredible 10 percent.

They’re going to end up spending more — perhaps lots more — and collecting less in tax revenue. And this is the party that claims to care about deficits and debt?

But wait, Republicans say, we’re going to “save” the big entitlement programs by trimming benefits. Yeah, sure. I’m not holding my breath. The problem is that Medicare and Social Security serve middle-class and upper-crust taxpayers, including many who share the GOP’s punish-the-poor belief system. If you think these ACA-focused town halls are hostile, just you wait.

The fact is that among recent administrations, at least, Democratic presidents have been the relative skinflints.

Bill Clinton, you will recall, actually balanced the budget — and yes, he had help from Republicans in Congress. Barack Obama spent heavily at first to save the economy, which was teetering on the edge of a dreadful abyss, but he ended up slashing the deficit in half and presiding over years of uninterrupted economic growth.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, fought hugely expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without accounting for them in his budgets. He also convinced Congress to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs, which was compassionate but costly.

Trump promises to be even more of a big spender. Among other things, he promises a trillion-dollar program to renew the nation’s infrastructure. Imagine the Republican howling if Obama had suggested such a thing.

The GOP will surely persist in its sanctimony about balanced budgets, but no one should pay any attention. Republicans, we see what you’re doing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/09/the-poor-just-dont-want-health-care-republican-congressman-faces-backlash-over-comments/?utm_term=.180c4c90930d

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/03/gop-congressman-jesus-says-poor-people-dont-want-health-care/

http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/35360545-78/gop-health-care-plan-built-on-backs-of-the-poor.html.csp

http://www.notey.com/blogs/poor-people

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/234750199303585669/

[peterinpa]

Republicans Get to Govern. We should all be worried.

In 2008, Barack Obama swept into office, bringing with him impressive majorities in both houses of Congress. Obituaries were written about the Republican Party and the changing demographics that would make it difficult for them to compete on the national level. Mitch McConnell laid out privately the game plan they readily adopted: oppose everything in unanimity to try and limit Obama to one term. Conservatives were wringing their hands in worry about the liberal agenda that would ruin the country. McConnell this weekend used the Classic winner revenge by reminding us that elections have consequences by declaring that Democrats were just being sore losers and that conservatives would now force their policies upon us. Fair enough. We're not in a favorable position to stop much. But 2016 is dramatically different than 2008 in a myriad of ways, a few of which I'll speak to in this posting. First, the Democrats were partly successful by running conservative candidates in gerrymandered Republican districts to achieve the ultimate goals: power, and the perks and money that follow it. And in an attempt to retain that power, they acquiesced to their conservative colleagues and watered down what became the PPACA, or Obamacare, essentially adopting a plan the Republicans had touted for decades and that Mitt Romney had implemented in Massachusetts. A complete reliance on the private sector for-profit insurance industry, with penalties for non insurance so low that only those in higher risk health categories would purchase insurance. And even though they had advocated this very plan since the 1970's, the GOP held firm with McConnell's advice: just say no. And the signature piece of legislation intended to jump start the economy, the so-called stimulus bill, was also watered down by the conservative wing out of fear mongering by republicans over the impact on the national debt. So what should have been the massive infrastructure rebuilding program we so desperately need, and that Trump now promises, we were left with a patchwork of tax credits and ill conceived projects that replaced a boardwalk in Rehoboth that would have been replaced anyway, and gave someone like me a tax credit on a central air system. All because Republican hypocrites wailed about the deficit, and conservative Democratic congressmen clung to the false pipe dream of staying in power. Let's ignore for the moment that for all his faults, and there were many, we actually had surplus budgets under Bill Clinton that would have continued into the future, according to the non partisan Congressional Budget Office had George W Bush, who also lost the popular vote, acted in the best interest of the country and not embraced that classic Republican philosophy of tax cuts for the already well off. You know, that trickle down theory. So 8 years ago, we had a Democratic Party in power, who thanks to Bill Clinton, had become confused about what they stood for: be a centrist party and look like Republican lite and cling to power, and perks and cash, or stand up for what had made this country great: a true liberal agenda that provides a safety net for the young and old and infirm, a fair tax system that supports defense, maintains a public works infrastructure, and provides for a quality public education. Oh. And ensure that the rights of minorities are not trampled upon by the latest change in public opinion whipped up by nationalistic demagogues selling the good old days. Now to my point. Donald Trump ran AGAINST the Republican establishment and mocked Republicans as the ones who would be stupid enough to give him the nomination. He was pro abortion when convenient, anti abortion when convenient. Said on many occasions that Bill was a great president, and that Hillary would be a better one. Contributed regularly to the opponents of the men who he has now nominated to cabinet positions. And ridiculed and denounced Republican leaders every chance he got. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell held their noses when it became clear he would be the nominee and gave lip service to supporting him. I truly believe that they never thought a guy who delighted in grabbing pussy, mocked the disabled, ridiculed prisoners of war, attacked Gold Star parents, lied about previous statements, never held public office, cheated contractors, misused charitable funds, declared bankruptcy when convenient, and apparently exploited tax law that his own lobbyists ensured remained in the tax code to avoid paying millions of dollars in federal taxes for 20 years. None of us did, really. Did we? So what happens now? Let's not forget that Republicans vehemently opposed the New Deal; that they viewed the Great Society as an overreach of government; that they voted against Medicare as a government takeover. Why? At their core, the party believes in personal responsibility and believes that family and church should provide the safety net that has been cobbled together over the years. They essentially disdain any government program and ignore the racial prejudice that still exists in our country since slavery was an economic institution. They have successfully starved the government of it's ability to deliver basic services by opposing every fair tax, modest tax increase or appropriate corporate tax, and then pointed to failing education and crumbling infrastructure and dwindling anti poverty programs as examples of how government shouldn't do these things. That the private sector can do it better. The one growth industry in government today? New and expanded prisons. Why? They convinced themselves that private industry could own and operate them! Wonder who owns stocks in those companies? My humble opinion is that Mr. Trump sees himself as chairman of the board. He doesn't need the money, at least from what he tells us. But he is a narcissist, and the attention of the world hanging on his every word is going to convince him he is our god. And the true purists in the Republican Party are going to be able to dismantle our safety net and convince us we will be able to do better on our own. Look at them, after all. All self made successful men who have suckled on the spigot of government contracts and influence. Don't worry, they will say. We can do better if Medicare is just a voucher. But a better plan! Don't worry, they will say! You can invest your social security in the stock market and make a killing. And the cash left over after you die will go to your kids! They will tell us public education has failed, so we need charters so we can send our kids to any school we want. But those teachers aren't unionized, and there is no evidence -zero- that suggests charters can do better. Smaller class sizes have proven to be the answer, but that costs more money. And they will tell us that deficits don't matter as they rack up huge spending on military programs the military has said they don't need or want, but that defense companies need to increase profits. And then tell us that the fraud in food stamp programs is so wide spread that they have to cut those to reduce our deficits. And yes, they will appoint Supreme Court justices who they say won't legislate from the bench. What they really mean is that they want justices who will endorse their view of the constitution. And yes, Mr. Trump will sign off on all this. Because he is the most elite of the elite corporate ruling class that really has been the shadow government from the start. And his tax cuts will ensure that he and his friends, and successive generations of them, will remain in the top 1% of the top 1%. Because his ego will be fed beyond even his imagination, and that's what drives him. Power and ego. And the Republicans will achieve their long standing goal of a smaller government under the moralistic position that we should turn to our religious institutions to care for the needy, and our families to provide for the infirm. Can we prevent this? Perhaps. And I'll explore the ways we may be able to in future posts which will be fairly frequent going forward. But we have fallen for the very demagogue that our founding fathers feared, for what we are about to learn was very good reasons. But make no mistake. The Democratic takeover 8 years ago was achieved by the selling of the soul of the Democratic Party for power, perks and cash. The Republican Party has purged itself of all moderate voices, and the liberal wing of the party, from which I came, has been destroyed. The Republican Party today is a purest philosophy party that doesn't need to worry about the loss of power at the local level. Sweetheart deals with Democrats, worked out at the precinct level, has gerrymandered the country into districts that are essentially safe for virtually all incumbents. They hail Ronald Reagan as their hero. They conveniently ignore the fact that Reagan raised taxes not once, but when needed, both as governor and as President. And he compromised often. Because he knew that it was the way to good government. Next up: why compromise is a dirty word, and what it will take to " give him a chance". And why term limits may be the only way to save our democracy.

[elizabethcariasa]

10 tax considerations and tips for newlyweds

Couple waiting to get married at San Francisco City Hall. (Photo by Brian Kusler via Flickr)

One good thing has come of my self-imposed pandemic lock down. Seeking a distraction from the news channels I usually watch, I'm finally getting more of my money's worth from our cable account.

I've been exploring the many channels the hubby and I typically tend to click right past. For the last week or so, I've tuned in to WEtv because of its run of CSI: Miami episodes. No judging, please!

Actually, the TV is more like a talking lamp (really!). The dramatic intonations of David Caruso's Horatio Caine character provide background noise while I work, peruse social media and catch up on stacked-up printed magazines, not always in that order. Again, no judging, please.

Sunglasses of Justice (SoJ) to the rescue! Via GIPHY

But a commercial actually got me to look at the screen today when the announcer asked, "Remember weddings? WEtv does. That's why we're bringing you a show guaranteed to comfort you in these uncertain times. … Forget Zoom. It's 'Zilla time!"

Yep, Bridezillas are back.

I never watched the show. I get enough of people behaving badly from news programs.

But the television ad reminded me of all the weddings that were postponed or reworked to accommodate COVID-19.

And that, of course, reminded me of all the tax matters that happy couples need to take care of whenever they finally tie the knot. Below are 10 tax tips for all newlyweds in coronavirus time and beyond.

1. Deal with dual withholding. A key post-vows tax move is adjusting your workplace withholding to account for your new joint filing status. This is particularly true where both spouses get wages. If you don't coordinate your taxes, specifically how much is taken out of each of your paychecks, then you could end up owing the Internal Revenue Service a lot at tax filing time. Even more distressing, especially as you're starting out a new life together, is that such withholding miscalculations could mean you owe Uncle Sam an underpayment penalty (and interest!), too.

The IRS says it's generally better for the higher-earning spouse to claim all the couple's allowances on his or her Form W-4, with the lower wage earner claiming zero. Such calculations also are critical if you and your new spouse might end up in a higher tax bracket and find yourselves subject to, among other things, the additional Medicare tax. The IRS' online withholding calculator is a good way for all taxpayers to make sure they get their withholding right.

2. Make sure everyone knows your new name. After marriage, some spouses change their surnames. If either, or both of the newlyweds legally change their name post-vows, they need to report it to the Social Security Administration (SSA). The IRS matches what's on your 1040 with the SSA data every filing season. It your new name on your post-wedding tax return doesn't match the official SSA info, it could delay any refund.

3. Update your address. Marriage also often means at least one spouse will have a new address. In these situations, the IRS and the U.S. Postal Service need to know. Newlyweds can file Form 8822, Change of Address, to update their mailing address with the IRS. They should notify the postal service to forward their mail by going online at USPS.com or by visiting their local post office.

Even if you didn't invite your boss to the wedding, he or she also needs to know about your address and/or name changes. That's the only way to ensure the Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, that your employer will send you early next year has the correct information.

4. Reassess tax-favored workplace benefits. When you get back from your honeymoon, stop by your workplace's benefits office to make adjustments. Since marriage is a major life changes, you'll be able to make necessary changes outside of the standard open enrollment period.

If both you and your spouse have jobs, review what benefits each workplace offers and coordinate them to get the maximize benefits, tax and otherwise. This is especially true if your marriage results in a blended family of dependent children.

Take special note of any flexible spending account (FSA) that you or your spouse have. You need to assess how these tax-preferred medical accounts fit into your new lifestyle and where changes need to be made.

5. Review your health care options. Speaking of health care, if you get medical coverage through the Affordable Care Act's (aka Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, aka the exchange, or a state marketplace instead of through your job, you definitely need to review that in light of your new marital status. You might be eligible for or now make too much combined income to qualify for the premium tax credit (PTC).

Other changes to your household, such as family size if your marriage also created a new blended family with minor, dependent children, also could affect the tax credit amount available to you. If you get advance PTC payments, you definitely need to report your life changes to your marketplace ASAP, as this can affect any tax refund or the amount of tax you owe.

6. Consider the charitable side of marriage. Did you use a nonprofit's hall to exchange your vows and made a donation to do so? It could be a tax deduction on your first joint return next year. Donating excess wedding food or favors also could provide a tax break. My post on tax-smart ways to give back on your wedding day has additional charitable ideas in connection with your nuptials.

7. Evaluate your filing status. While your wedding date is important, for tax purposes the big day is Dec. 31. If you are legally married on or any time before the last day of the tax year, the IRS considers you married for the full year. That means your tax return for that year must be filed as married filing jointly or married filing separately.

Generally, the joint filing status is more advantageous. Sometimes, though, married spouses fare better (or at least one spouse does) when they opt to file two separate returns. My post on 6 signs married couples should consider separate tax returns has more on these considerations. Also check out the IRS' interactive tax assistant to help you determine which status is best for you and your new spouse.

8. Determine whether you'll face a marriage penalty or bonus. For many couples, getting married results in a lower tax bill compared to the single filing status. This tends to happen when one spouse earns significantly more than the other. Couples that earn similar amounts, however, may wind up paying more combined federal and state tax. This is especially true for higher income earners.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 made many changes, but these so-called marriage tax penalty or bonus situations remain to some degree. As with all things tax, marriage penalties and bonuses depend on your personal circumstances. But it's good to know how your vows affect your tax situation and explore possible options, such as one spouse deciding to give up or reduce hours at his or her job, to ease any added tax costs.

9. Talk taxes before the vows. You've had the discussion about your tax-favored job benefits. You also discussed how your joint earnings will affect not only your new lifestyle, but also your taxes. Still, you might need to have an additional tax talk. Or two. This is especially true if you have some questions about how your spouse handles some income and subsequent tax matters.

The reason for these added tax talks comes into play if you do decide to file a joint tax return. Both spouses are equally responsible for what's on that lone Form 1040. This is known as joint and several liability and is found in §6013(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This statute gives the IRS the ability to come after either spouse for payment of a tax bill, even the spouse who is in more dire financial circumstances. You might be able to avoid or lessen the adverse tax implications if you qualify as an innocent or injured tax spouse.

But it's better to be preemptive. So take a good look at your new married financial and tax situation in making the decision (among others) to possibly file separately to avoid any ill effects of this shared tax liability law.

10. Don't forget about your state taxes. Most Americans face some sort of state tax in addition to what they annually owe Uncle Sam. Many of the actions you'll take with regard to your federal taxes (name change, residence, etc.) also apply to your state tax situation. Check with your state tax office or even better your tax adviser as to what to expect, at all tax levels, now that you're married.

While taxes could be, like your wedding vows noted, better or worse after you're married, they usually don't play a big role in couples' decisions to marry. That's how it should be. Love definitely takes precedence over taxes. That said, however, don't ignore them either. You don't want one of your fist disagreements after starting off your new married life to be about taxes.

Advertisements

  // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]> // ]]>  

[truck-fump]

Trump’s 40 Biggest Broken PromisesTrump voters. Nearly 4 years...

New Post has been published on https://robertreich.org/post/627457685714010112

Trump’s 40 Biggest Broken PromisesTrump voters. Nearly 4 years...

Trump’s 40 Biggest Broken Promises

Trump voters. Nearly 4 years in, here’s an updated list of Trump’s 40 biggest broken promises.

1. He said coronavirus would “go away without a vaccine.” You bought it. But it didn’t. While other countries got the pandemic under control and avoided large numbers of fatalities, the virus has killed more than 130,000 Americans*, and that number is still climbing.

2. He said he won’t have time to play golf if elected president. But he has made more than 250 visits to his golf clubs since he took office – a record for any president – including more trips during the pandemic than meetings with Dr. Fauci. The total financial cost to America? More than $136 million.

3. He said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with something “beautiful.” It didn’t happen. Instead, 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance since he took office. He has asked the Supreme Court to strike down the law in the middle of a global pandemic with no plan to replace it.

4. He said he’d cut your taxes, and that the super-rich like him would pay more. He did the opposite. By 2027, the richest 1 percent will have received 83 percent of the Trump tax cut and the richest 0.1 percent, 60 percent of it. But more than half of all Americans will pay more in taxes.

5. He said corporations would use their tax cuts to invest in American workers. They didn’t. Corporations spent more of their tax savings buying back shares of their own stock than increasing workers wages.

6. He said he would boost economic growth by 4 percent a year. Nope. The economy stalled, and unemployment has soared to the highest levels since the Great Depression. Just over half of working-age Americans are employed – the worst ratio in 70 years.  

7. He said he wouldn’t “cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.” His latest budget includes billions in cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

8. He promised to be “the voice” of American workers. He hasn’t. His administration has stripped workers of their rights, repealed overtime protections, rolled back workplace safety rules, and turned a blind eye to employers who steal their workers’ wages.

9. He promised that the average American family would see a $4,000 pay raise because of his tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. But nothing trickled down. Wages for most Americans have barely kept up with inflation.    

10. He promised that anyone who wants a test for Covid will get one. But countless Americans still can’t get a test.

11. He said hydroxychloroquine protects against coronavirus. No way. The FDA revoked its emergency authorization due to the drug’s potentially lethal side effects.

12. He promised to eliminate the federal deficit. He has increased the federal deficit by more than 60 percent.

13. He said he would hire “only the best people.” He has fired a record number of his own cabinet and White House picks, and then called them “whackos,” “dumb as a rock,“ and  “not mentally qualified.”  6 of them have been charged with crimes.

14. He promised to bring down the price of prescription drugs and said drug companies are “getting away with murder.”  They still are. Drug prices have soared, and a company that got federal funds to develop a drug to treat coronavirus is charging $3,000 a pop.

15. He promised to revive the struggling coal industry and bring back lost coal mining jobs. The coal industry has continued to lose jobs as clean energy becomes cheaper.

16. He promised to help American workers during the pandemic. But 80% of the tax benefits in the coronavirus stimulus package have gone to millionaires and billionaires. And at least 21 million Americans have lost extra unemployment benefits, with no new stimulus check to fall back on.

17. He said he’d drain the swamp. Instead, he’s brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, and he’s filled departments and agencies with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who are crafting new policies for the same industries they used to work for.

18. He promised to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions. His Justice Department is trying to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act, including protections for people with preexisting conditions.

19. He said Mexico would pay for his border wall. The wall is estimated to cost American taxpayers an estimated $11 billion.

20. He promised to bring peace to the Middle East. Instead, tensions have increased and his so-called “peace plan” was dead on arrival.

21. He promised to lock up Hillary Clinton for using a private email server. He didn’t. Funny enough, Trump uses his personal cell-phone for official business, and several members of his own administration, including Jared Kushner and Ivanka, have used private email in the White House.

22. He promised to use his business experience to whip the federal government into shape. He hasn’t. His White House is in permanent chaos. He caused the longest government shutdown in our nation’s history when he didn’t get funding for his wall.

23. He promised to end DACA. The Supreme Court ruled that his plan to deport 700,000 young immigrants was unconstitutional, and DACA still stands.  

24. He promised “six weeks of paid maternity leave to any mother with a newborn child whose employer does not provide the benefit.” He hasn’t delivered.

25. He promised to bring an end to Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear program. Kim is expanding North Korea’s nuclear program.

26. He said he would distance himself from his businesses while in office. He continues to make money from his properties and maintain his grip on his real estate empire.

27. He said he’d force companies to keep jobs in America, and that there would be consequences for companies that shipped jobs abroad. Since he took office, companies like GE, Carrier, Ford, and Harley Davidson have continued to outsource thousands of jobs while still receiving massive tax breaks. And offshoring by federal contractors has increased.

28. He promised to end the opioid crisis. Americans are now more likely to die from an opioid overdose than a car accident.

29. He said he’d release his tax returns. It’s been nearly 4 years. He hasn’t released his tax returns.

30. He promised to tear up the Iran nuclear deal and renegotiate a better deal. Negotiations have gone nowhere, and he brought us to the brink of war.

31. He promised to enact term limits for all members of Congress. He has not even tried to enact term limits.

32. He promised that China would pay for tariffs on imported goods. His trade war has cost U.S. consumers $34 billion a year, eliminated 300,000 American jobs, and cost American taxpayers $22 billion in subsidies for farmers hurt by the tariffs.

33. He promised to “push colleges to cut the skyrocketing cost of tuition.” Instead, he’s made it easier for for-profit colleges to defraud students, and tuition is still rising.

34. He promised to protect American steel jobs. The steel industry continues to lose jobs.

35. He promised tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would spur economic growth and pay for themselves. His tax cuts will add $2 trillion to the federal deficit.

36. After pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, he said he’d negotiate a better deal on the environment. He hasn’t attempted to negotiate any deal.  

37. He promised that the many women who accused him of sexual misconduct “will be sued after the election is over.” He hasn’t sued them, presumably because he doesn’t want the truth to come out.

38. He promised to bring back all troops from Afghanistan. He now says: “We’ll always have somebody there.”

39. He pledged to put America first. Instead, he’s deferred to dictators and authoritarians at America’s expense, and ostracized our allies — who now laugh at us behind our back.

40. He promised to be the voice of the common people. He’s made his rich friends richer, increased the political power of big corporations and the wealthy, and harmed working Americans.Don’t let the liar-in-chief break any more promises. Vote him out in November.

[blogzshah]

For anyone plugged in to the news firehose about the coronavirus pandemic, it has been extremely bizarre to watch President Trump's approval rating. He has botched the crisis beyond belief, and the United States now has the biggest outbreak in the world. Because of his ongoing failure to secure stockpiles of medical supplies, doctors and nurses are re-using protective gear over and over, and suiting up in garbage bags and page protectors to treat COVID-19 patients. Some have already caught the virus and died — along with over 1,300 others at time of writing, which is very likely an underestimate.Yet Trump's approval rating keeps going up. Poll averages show a marked bump in favorable ratings, a recent Washington Post/ABC poll has him above water. He does even better on the coronavirus response, with a Gallup poll finding him at 60 percent approval of his handling of the situation.This is what happens when the Democratic Party, de facto led at this point by its presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden, refuses to make the case that Trump is in fact responsible for the severity of the disaster. Biden is proving to be about the worst imaginable nominee to take on Trump.Now, Biden is not entirely to blame here. Surely some of Trump's approval bump can be chalked up to the usual "rally around the flag" effect that tends to happen at times of crisis, and the fact that we are likely still in the very early stages of the pandemic.But if we dig into the numbers, some of the bump in Trump's approval rating is coming from changes in Democratic attitudes. A Pew poll, for instance, found that Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters nearly doubled their approval of Trump over the last few weeks, from 7 to 12 percent. It's not a huge change, but it could make the difference between Trump winning or losing in an election which is likely to be close.As has been made abundantly clear, Democratic voters tend to take their cues from Democratic elites. The party rallied around Biden in lockstep right before Super Tuesday, and voters fell in line. Biden won multiple states he has not visited in months and in which he had no campaign offices. And now that he's the probable nominee, Biden is not savaging Trump's response. On the contrary, his campaign says they are hesitant to even criticize him at all. "As much as I dislike Trump and think what a bad job he's doing, there's a danger now that attacking him can backfire on you if you get too far out there. I don't think the public wants to hear criticism of Trump right now," one adviser told Politico.Indeed, Biden has barely been doing anything. As the outbreak became a full-blown crisis, Biden disappeared for almost an entire week. His campaign said it was trying to figure out how to do video livestreams, something any 12-year-old could set up in about 15 minutes. (Hey guys: Any smartphone with Twitter, YouTube, or Twitch installed can become a broadcasting device with the press of a single button.) When Biden did finally appear, he gave some scripted addresses that still had technical foul-ups, and did softball interviews where he still occasionally trailed off mid-sentence.People crave leadership during times of crisis, as evidence by the sudden surge of positive sentiment towards New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who seriously mishandled the initial crisis response, and is still trying to cut Medicaid, but has been giving reassuring daily press conferences where he seems like he is on top of the situation. Washington state Governor Jay Inslee did a much, much better job (just compare the numbers in New York to those in Washington state), but has gotten comparatively little attention precisely because there are a lot fewer cases and deaths (and there are many fewer reporters in Seattle than New York City).Trump, meanwhile, is similarly out there on TV every day boasting about how what he's doing is so smart and good. What he's saying is insanely irresponsible and has already gotten people killed, but absent an effective response from the Democratic leadership, it can appear to casual news consumers as though he has the situation in hand. Democratic backbenchers and various journalists are screaming themselves hoarse, but it plainly isn't working.Biden's strategy appears to be to coast to the presidency in basically the same way he coasted to the nomination: Keep public appearances and therefore embarrassing verbal flubs to a minimum, and rely on Trump's disastrous governance to do all the work for him. But this is a horribly risky strategy. Biden is already a candidate whose awful record will make it harder to attack Trump on trade, protecting Social Security and Medicare, corruption, mental fitness, and his treatment of women — indeed, just recently a former Biden staffer came forward with an allegation that he had sexually assaulted her 26 years ago. Hunkering down and refusing to criticize Trump's world-historical bungling risks him successfully arguing that it was an unforeseeable disaster and he did the best anyone could have done.Contrary to these half-baked notions that the public doesn't want to hear criticism of Trump, we saw during impeachment that once Democrats actually started going through with it, approval jumped — largely because the liberal rank-and-file took that as a cue it was indeed a good idea. It's just another instance of the Democratic establishment's habit of hiding their desire to avoid conflict and do nothing behind an imagined obstacle of public opinion, when in fact they can change those opinions dramatically by offering a strong and clear alternative.Moreover, if and when Biden does become president, he will be in charge of a country in ruins. Fixing the place up will require extremely energetic leadership. But both Biden, his campaign, and the Democratic establishment seem to believe that if they just pretend hard enough, everything will go back to normal on its own. It is willful blindness on par with the worst Trump loyalists.Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.More stories from theweek.com Once coronavirus infects a human body, what happens next? Elton John to host 'Living Room Concert for America' with stars performing from home Trump brags about his television ratings as pandemic intensifies from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/33Ud00F via IFTTT

http://wwwspreadknowledge.blogspot.com/2020/03/joe-biden-is-worst-imaginable.html