O:9:"MagpieRSS":23:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:25:{i:0;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-2630574292570934692";s:9:"published";s:29:"2017-07-09T06:32:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2017-07-09T06:32:50.629-07:00";s:5:"title";s:38:"Health Care Reform - Tax-Based Changes";s:12:"atom_content";s:3428:"Part of the GOP is currently making a last ditch effort to get a repeal and replace healthcare bill passed, while some factions are insisting on a full repeal and others insist on keeping a great deal of Medicaid expansion in place.<br /><br />While my family and I benefit from some provisions of the ACA, I cannot fully disagree with stepping away from Obamacare. Using the US tax code to help taxpayers cover their health care expenses seems to be a good place to make concessions that could make Trump-care more palatable.<br /><b><u><br /></u></b><b><u>Health Insurance Adjustment for ALL Taxpayers</u></b><br /><br />In Donald Trump's campaign promises regarding health care, he mentioned making health insurance "fully deductible". Currently, the tax code allows for health insurance provided by employers and health insurance for the self employed as adjustments to gross income. However, anyone who is employed and buys health insurance on their own gets the 10% of adjusted gross income limit shaved off of their deduction. This is one example of a glaringly inequitable result in the tax system - especially under Obamacare. If health insurance is an adjustment from income for those who have employer provided coverage and for those that are self-employed - it should be an adjustment for all taxpayers.<br /><br /><b><u>Remove the 10% Limit For Certain Medical Expenses</u></b><br /><b><u><br /></u></b>When my boys were diagnosed with Autism, the most effective medical treatment for the disease was not covered by a vast majority of health insurance plans. The cost is high enough that it was impossible for families with incomes under 50,000 dollars to afford. These factor's led my wife and I to pursue her graduate education. We needed to raise our income in order to pay for these major expenses out of pocket.<br /><br />Unfortunately, when you raise your income your raise your tax debt as well. While we have more money to pay for medical therapies, the IRS eats up a substantial portion without realistic allowances for additional financial costs associated with special needs children.<br /><br />There are many situations where families that care for special needs or ill family members end up with a major tax bill that they cannot pay because medical expenses devour all available savings and investments. These people either get in deeper debt to pay the IRS, or they pay tax professionals (more debt) to help them request installment arrangements or request offers in compromise (offer's to settle tax debt for less than the amount owed).<br /><br />If the 10% limitation was removed for catastrophic medical expenses (medical expenses from a single event that exceed 5,000 dollars or more) and medical expenses of the uninsurable chronically ill and/or disabled individuals, these families would be paying taxes on amounts that are more reflective of their actually financial position.<br /><br />If we are going to get rid of Obamacare, let's provide some real incentives for people to be able to take care of their own medical issues. Taxing people on income with a health insurance adjustment would make health insurance a less painful expenditure. Allowing full medical deductions for those who have to pay medical expenses out of pocket, would make being self-sufficient a much easier pill to swallow for families with disabilities, pre-existing conditions, and other chronic medical problems.";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/2630574292570934692/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=2630574292570934692";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/2630574292570934692";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/2630574292570934692";s:4:"link";s:81:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2017/07/health-care-reform-tax-based-changes.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:1;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-363241172597504660";s:9:"published";s:29:"2017-06-24T08:06:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2017-06-24T08:06:32.472-07:00";s:5:"title";s:18:"Health Care Reform";s:12:"atom_content";s:9946:"As we stand on the brink of the GOP repealing the ACA and replacing it with there own version, I am forced to grapple with the personal and societal impact of government involvement in health care. When Obama was elected, me and my family was relatively healthy, I considered myself far more conservative than I am now, and I believed that the ACA was something that would grow government to an unsustainable size. As the ACA is about to be repealed, my perspective has been broadened due to health issues of my children and my own health problems. However, I still see the problem of government health care - it increases the size of government and gives Uncle Sam more of a hand in your personal life. The biggest thing that the ACA has done for my family is requiring insurers (including Medicaid) to cover treatments for Autism like Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). Conversely, the ACA has stretched the budgets of American families that have either paid more for health insurance than they need, or have incurred tax penalties because they did not comply with the ACA mandate. What is the optimal solution for allowing all American's the right to healthcare, or is it a even a right at all? The one thing that is patently clear is that unilateral reform initiatives will leave American's in limbo as power will continue to change hands every 4-8 years.<br /><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Tale of Two Brothers</u></b><br /><br />To illustrate the difference of being with and without affordable coverage that covers all our healthcare needs, I would like share my sons' story.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>I have two boys that are severely Autistic. Quinn was born in 2006, 4 years before the ACA was passed. Milo was born in 2009, 1 year before the ACA was passed. ABA has been the prescribed treatment for the entire period from Quinn's initial diagnosis in 2008. The problem then was that ABA was not covered by any insurance companies &nbsp;and it cost more than 30,000 dollars per year. On salary of a Bachelor degreed accountant, that sum would take nearly 75% of my annual salary. In the meantime, I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease that required a financially painful medication regimen and my second son was also diagnosed with Autism a few years later.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>My wife and I decided to change our situation the best we could. Since my long-term health had come into question, we determined that we should invest in my wife's education with the intent that she can be the breadwinner. This took 6 years, but we sacrificed and got my wife through her masters degree. She is now the breadwinner with a good health insurance plan.</div><div><br /></div><div>Luckily, a few things happened toward the tail end of her education. State law required insurance companies and court rulings related to the ACA required Medicaid to cover ABA. My boys finally started getting therapy in 2016. This is almost 8 years after Quinn was diagnosed, and 5 years after Milo was diagnosed.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Sadly, time is your enemy with Autism. The older a child gets, the more difficult it becomes to treat them with ABA. By the time my wife finished her education, Quinn was almost 10 years old and Milo was 7 years old. The ages 2 to 5 are the most impactful years for Autism treatment.&nbsp;</div></div><div><br /></div><div>The differences in the boys' progress is striking.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Milo has improved immensely. He is able to participate in mainstream classes at school, makes some eye contact, speaks clearly, is a great problem solver, and can take care of almost all of his functional needs.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Quinn has also improved as well, but his improvement has not been nearly as drastic. While he is now partially potty trained (a feat that I greatly appreciate) he is still very much trapped in his own world. He still doesn't speak clearly, he requires assistance with most of his functional needs, he makes no eye contact, and spends almost zero time in mainstream classes.<br /><br />Autism treatment is most valuable at younger ages. From Autism Speaks:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="background-color: white; color: #010101; font-size: 16px;"><i><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">In the study, researchers at The New England Center for Children enrolled 83 toddlers diagnosed with autism in the school’s Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention program. The program, based on the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), provided 20 to 30 hours of one-on-one therapy each week. The children were between 1 and 3 years old at the time they began therapy....</span></i></span></blockquote><blockquote style="background-color: white; color: #010101; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;"><i><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">While all age groups showed improvements, a much larger percentage of the youngest participants made significant gains in skills during the year of therapy.<br />* Among the toddlers who entered the therapy program before their second birthday, 90 percent (11 out of 12 children) made significant gains.<br />* This was true of 70 percent (26 of 36) of those who began therapy between 24 and 29 months of age.</span></i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #010101; font-size: 16px;">* By contrast, only 30 percent of the children who entered therapy after 30 months of age (11 out of 35) made significant gains across the year.</span>&nbsp;</span></i></blockquote></div><div>Prior to ACA, poorer Autistic kids were generally out of luck because of a lack of services and affordability. In Utah, there was both a lack of services in our home town and the available services were unaffordable until the past few years. Since the ACA and the court ruling that required state Medicaid cover ABA, more children are receiving therapy than ever.<br /><br />I have concerns that the GOP ACA will make treatment unaffordable and unattainable for many other families of autistic children during the formative developmental years when treatment has the best chance of providing the Autistic child with a normal life.<br /><br /><b><u>Big Brother</u></b><br /><br />Socialized healthcare has been a bogeyman in the US since the Cold War. In the fight against the ACA, the right used the popular image of Orwellian death panels that would be tasked with coldly allocating healthcare to only the most important members of society. Other images that socialized healthcare conjures are DMV styled hospitals, where patients are dying in inefficient and poorly managed lines by uncaring bureaucrats.<br /><br />The ACA definitely has some majorly intrusive requirements for individuals. For a family of six to buy minimum coverage under the ACA, you may be forced to spend between 1,000 and 2,000 dollars per month or face a penalty of 2,128 dollars for 2016 (for income of 100,000 dollars). High earners were required to pay an additional medicare tax on their wages and investment income to help subsidize health care costs.<br /><br />Worse still, is the fact that health premiums rose drastically each year for almost all Americans and insurance companies are starting to drop out of the ACA Marketplace because it has not been profitable insuring people with pre-existing conditions.<br /><br /><b><u>Unilateral Healthcare Reform</u></b><br /><b><u><br /></u></b>The ACA and now the AHCA were both crafted unilaterally. The GOP complained for nearly eight years that they were not given a voice in regards to Obamacare, and in a "tit for tat" move they are doing the exact same thing.<br /><br />It is this "tit-for-tat" politics regarding health care that is most disturbing. One doesn't need a crystal ball to see that the Democrat's will reinstate Obamacare (possibly a far more left leaning version) as soon as they regain power (which is almost assured to happen with Trump's popularity). This leaves the American people in limbo in regards to healthcare every 4-8 years wondering how will something as important as healthcare change.<br /><br />Healthcare should not be used as a political pawn.<br /><br /><b><u>Making Healthcare Affordable</u></b><br /><b><u><br /></u></b>Principle not politics needs to guide the discussion of healthcare, and until that happens the American people are getting the raw deal.<br /><br />Personally, I think there must be a better way to help people get healthcare than handing the reins to the Federal government.<br /><br />As tax professional, government can subsidize healthcare in a less intrusive and more cost efficient manner. If I had the power to enact regulation, I would move to use charitable giving and medical expense deductions to make health care more affordable to more people.<br /><br />Special status could be given to certain 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance for the healthcare expenses of the poor. For contributions to these organizations, a taxpayer could be given a generous credit (without income limits) instead of a deduction. Making the credit available for contributions up until the filing deadline (like with the IRA) would allow tax payers to make contributions based on their tax situation (the time when people are most interested in saving tax dollars). This way more healthcare would be subsidized outside of entitlement programs.<br /><br />Necessary medical expenses should be fully deductible, and health insurance should be an adjustment from income for all taxpayers (not just the self-employed). This would alleviate the burden that people face when they have high medical bills and a tax bill in the same year.<br /><br /><br /></div><div></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:147:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/363241172597504660/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=363241172597504660";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/363241172597504660";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/363241172597504660";s:4:"link";s:63:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2017/06/health-care-reform.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:2;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-6801619956819547456";s:9:"published";s:29:"2017-05-16T12:11:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2017-05-16T12:12:25.636-07:00";s:5:"title";s:95:"Student Loan Repayment and Education Costs - Tax Benefit Approach to Encouraging Loan Repayment";s:12:"atom_content";s:4198:"As student loan debt reaches unprecedented levels, it will become important that government officials find methods to reduce the cost of a college education, encourage repayment, and allow debtors a way out if repayment is simply impossible. While reducing the cost of a college education and allowing debtors a way to receive a discharge of student load debt are issues that are beyond the scope of my expertise, utilizing the US tax code to encourage borrowers to repay their loans could be a powerful and beneficial tool to get student loan debt repaid.<br /><br />There are a couple of misguided principles that currently rule how the tax code encourages American's to get a college education. First, education credits currently end up benefiting parents who &nbsp;(in many cases) may not pay a dime of the student's educational expenses, or they are only available to the student in years where they have no income. Second is that student loan interest is the only benefit available to student's who are making their loan payments. Unfortunately, the student loan interest deduction is limited to a paltry 2,500 dollars and the deduction is completely eliminated if your income is more that 80,000 dollars (160,000 for taxpayers filing married joint returns). The first principle wastes tax benefits for the student who is going repay the debt, and the second principle doesn't provide a strong enough incentive for students to diligently repay their student loan debt.<br /><br /><b><u>Tax Credits for Graduates</u></b><br /><br />Education tax credits would be better utilized if they were carried forward, usable by the student borrower only, and only allowable after graduation from a bachelor or graduate program. This would reduce the number of tax credits that are taken each year by making graduation a prerequisite for claiming the tax benefit. It may also reduce the number of students that attend college each year who lack the direction and intention of graduating with their degrees.<br /><br />This would also provide new graduates with an income cushion that would make loan repayment a less stressful proposition in the early years of their new careers while their income is lower.<br /><br /><b><u>Unlimited Student Loan Interest Deduction</u></b><br /><b><u><br /></u></b>The student loan interest deduction could be made fully deductible. Doing so would provide incentive for repaying the loans and increase the repayment percentages. The deduction could also be tiered between borrowers who finish their degrees and those that do not graduate. If the borrower graduated, the interest deduction could remain a adjustment from income. Borrowers who do not graduate would be eligible for an itemized student loan interest deduction.<br /><br /><b><u>Revenue Neutrality</u></b><br /><br />In order to keep this proposal revenue neutral, limits that have been in place against student loan interest (at different levels possibly) should be made to apply against the mortgage interest deduction. The mortgage interest deduction has been a special interest loophole for the mortgage industry and realtors for several years. Unfortunately, it has been a contributing justification for unsustainable increases in home prices across the country for the past 10-15 years and ballooning debt. If we take a utilitarian approach to providing individual income tax benefits, it is clear that providing more tax relief to college graduates is of more value to society than rewarding mortgage debtors. The cost of a completed college education benefits the country with a more competitive workforce and taxpayers with a high earning capacity, while bloated mortgages benefit big banks and the bottom line of realtors that make thousands of dollars on every sales transaction that they close.<br /><br />Student loan defaults are a major problem facing our nation's budget. Congress must find better answers to encourage loan repayment, and this issue needs to be solved sooner than later. Current student loan default rates are at 11%, but the true rate of non-repayment is far higher if the number of borrowers on reduced or income based repayment plans are taken into account.<br /><br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/6801619956819547456/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=6801619956819547456";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/6801619956819547456";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/6801619956819547456";s:4:"link";s:81:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2017/05/student-loan-repayment-and-education.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:3;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-4689105702425716404";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-12-24T05:52:00.002-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-12-24T05:53:09.793-08:00";s:5:"title";s:44:"Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the Inauguration";s:12:"atom_content";s:7749:"The church has accepted an invitation to sing at Donald Trump's inauguration. The church has a long standing policy of singing at the inauguration of any president that offers an invitiation. There has been 10 inauguration performances since their very first invitation from Howard Taft. The presidents that have offered invites include, Taft, LBJ, Nixon, &nbsp;Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. However, many critical of the move feel that Trump's rhetoric and arguably racist policy proposals should have led the church to reject the invitation as a sign of disapproval of the incoming president despite a nearly century old policy of accepting all invitations. Such an arbitrary snub would be a mistake, and there are many reasons why.<br /><div><br /></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;">Political bans for charities and the LDS church - Policies are like bricks in a wall:</u>&nbsp;As a charitable organization, the church is strictly banned from being involved in political activity for or in behalf of any candidate or either political party. However, the church may be involved in political activity in regards to public policy proposals and issues. There is a clear dividing line. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints follows this mandate and they have policies to make sure lines are not crossed and they do not take risks in regards to their charitable status. Policies build a wall against legal challenges that keep the church safe from scrutiny and from losing their ability to function as a charity in the US. If policies are followed, the wall is strong and legal challenges against their charitable status are thrown out as being without merit. If policies are followed and ignored arbitrarily, the wall is weakened and legal challenges may begin to look like they have merit.</div><div><br /></div><div>For example, during the course of the presidential campaign and other immigration debates in the past, the church openly condemned Trump's anti-Muslim proposals and they have condemned harsh immigration proposals that pursued merciless deportation of aliens without consideration of the damage that such harsh proposals can inflict on families. These political statements are within the parameters of the law and the policies of the church. However, the church annually disclaims political affiliation to its members and to the public and they avoid the appear of endorsing candidates to the best of their ability.</div><div><br /></div><div>The church regularly faces accusations of political violations because of their involvement in anti-gay marriage campaigns. As a whole these accusations have been rejected by Federal courts as meritless and frivolous for one main reason. The church consistently applies policies of engaging in public policy debates that involve issues that are important to the church, and avoiding the appearance of being involved in political activities for or against candidates or political parties.</div><div><br /></div><div>Arbitrarily saying no to Donald Trump's invite would arguably be making a political statement. Since he is a candidate, this would also arguably be in violation of the political ban in IRC 501(c)(3). Given the evangelical right wing's embrace of Trump and their everlasting disdain for Mormons, I would venture to bet that there would be a lawsuit (one with merit) if the decision to arbitrarily rescind their agreement to sing at Trump's inauguration was to happen. The once strong brick wall of consistent policy adherence begins to erode and the church would risk more scrutiny on this issue and possibly even risk their charitable status.</div><div><br /></div><div>I have heard the argument that the church needs to say "they don't like Trump, but they are only singing to keep right with the law". This would still be a statement that violates the church's neutrality policy, and arguably violates the statute.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;">Making friends and influencing people (and more importantly influencing policy:</u>&nbsp;Donald Trump is not an ideal president. The man has character flaws that shine as bright as the sun. I wish there was someone else being inaugurated next month with all of my heart. However, he will be the president. There is nothing short of a military coup that can keep him from being inaugurated.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Those that suggest the church should squander an opportunity to build a positive relationship with the man that (unfortunately) will run public policy in the US and (arguably) the free world are ignoring the political price of such a petty snub.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Presidents have traditionally asked for the input of religious leaders on policy proposals that can have an effect on families, cultures, and religious groups. The church has built up a reasonable amount of clout in the US as one of the largest centralized Christian churches in the world.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Of the many publicly discernible character flaws of Donald Trump, his tendency to engage in petty feuds is one of the most visible. He has been known to engage in petty feuds with anyone who criticizes him for decades. His past enemies include celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell and Alec Baldwin, and politicians like Mitt Romney, Marc Rubio, and Utahn Evan McMullin. McMullin ran a barely noticeable independent presidential campaign that was heavily critical of Trump, and McMullin still draws Trump's pettiness to this day (he recently called McMullin, McMuffin at a "thank you" rally). &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Given the fact that Trump will be making major policy changes, I would rather that the LDS Church be one of the religious groups that this buffoon turns to when making decisions like whether or not to go ahead with Muslim registries or deport 12 million individuals.</div><div><br /></div><div>If the church engages in petty snubs with Trump, we can all guarantee that they will receive petty snubs in return.</div><div><br /></div><div>Not to men<span style="background-color: white;">tion the fact that pettiness flies in the face of church doctrine. From LDS scripture D&amp;C 121:43, "r</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">eproving</span><span style="color: #333333;">&nbsp;betimes with&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #333333;">sharpness</span><span style="color: #333333;">, when&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #333333;">moved</span><span style="color: #333333;">&nbsp;upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #333333;">love</span><span style="color: #333333;">&nbsp;toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy".&nbsp;</span></span>&nbsp;The church has already reproved this world leader and engaging in a petty snub would lead to being esteemed an enemy - not a wise squandering of political capital.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">One of the biggest problem in US politics, is that we have become far to willing to be swayed by passions and act rashly in anger and less willing to consider issues dispassionately with reason and wisdom. Assuming the Russian hacking allegations are correct, this is exactly the flaw in the American people that the Russians played upon to help get Trump elected. &nbsp;I believe my church leaders are being wise by being guided by and in following long standing policies and church doctrines rather than the angers and passions of short-sighted members and the public.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/4689105702425716404/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=4689105702425716404";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/4689105702425716404";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/4689105702425716404";s:4:"link";s:85:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/12/mormon-tabernacle-choir-and-inauguration.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"1";}}i:4;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-6693356510488736353";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-11-27T14:00:00.001-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-11-27T16:54:30.983-08:00";s:5:"title";s:14:"Romney v Trump";s:12:"atom_content";s:2667:"It appears that Conway has been chosen as the voice regarding Trump's true feelings on Mitt Romney and the fabricated consideration for Secretary of State. For a week now, she has been on the airways discussing how the base views Romney, "<span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/27/conway-resumes-romney-opposition-says-trump-loyalists-feel-betrayed.html"><span style="background-color: #f4f4f4; color: #222222;">People feel betrayed to think that … Romney, who went out of his way to question the character and the intellect and the integrity of Donald Trump … would be given the most significant Cabinet post of all,”</span><span style="background-color: #f4f4f4; color: #222222;">&nbsp;</span></a>&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">This is disappointing, but not at all surprising. When the idea of Romney as Secretary of State was floated a few weeks ago, I was skeptical. However, I felt like this may be a moment where Donald Trump might prove me wrong. "Maybe, just maybe, he is not the small handed Napoleon that I took him to be."&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Romney would have been a wise choice. In the 2012 debate, he forecasted&nbsp;the current situation with Russia and Putin better than the Obama administration in any of the succeeding 4 years that they remained in office. Comparatively, he is well liked abroad and in the US. Most importantly, this was an opportunity missed to show some capability on the part of the impending POTUS to handle differing points of view (something he seemed incapable of during the campaign on even the GOP side of the isle). He could have taken this opportunity to make GOP #neverTrump people step back and take another look at him as a leader and a POTUS.</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Unfortunately, Trump is predictable. He may through one or two critics in the cabinet, but as a whole he will fill the cabinet with yes-men, cronies, and cheerleaders of him and whatever policies he pursues. This coming administration will come with a heavy price for the GOP and conservative politics for many years to come.</span>";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/6693356510488736353/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=6693356510488736353";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/6693356510488736353";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/6693356510488736353";s:4:"link";s:59:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/11/romney-v-trump.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:5;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-2624219409161644648";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-11-16T10:23:00.001-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-11-16T10:23:24.206-08:00";s:5:"title";s:52:"Social Security - Changing the Way We Look At Things";s:12:"atom_content";s:4548:"<div class="_5pbx userContent" data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;K&quot;}" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: &quot;San Francisco&quot;, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, &quot;.SFNSText-Regular&quot;, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: -0.24px; line-height: 1.38; overflow: hidden;"><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_582ca30eabcbd1c82470471" style="display: inline; font-family: inherit;"><div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px;">So, social security is a big issue for me. With severely disabled kids, I realize that my sons may be extremely dependent on social assistance at some point in their life. Social security is a big resource for assistance to disabled individuals. Soon recipients will out number contributors. This is a disastrous set of circumstances for a retirement system that operates as a Ponzi scheme. The fact that we have not taken appropriate steps to make social security viable for reti<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; font-family: inherit;">rees and the disabled is very concerning. Honestly, this should be the biggest domestic concern for all Americans.</span></div><div class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; font-family: inherit;"><div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px;">This meme is (well) stupid. Social security is a legal Ponzi scheme (I understand, that wasn't the intent of the law when it was framed) but that's what it is. Americans need to get that fact.</div><div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">Sadly, politicians keep punting this issue to the next generation with worse field position each time. President Trump seems determined to punt yet again, and sadly I fear that this punt will leave us pinned with our backs to the wall and no real way to escape a full collapse of the Social Security system.</div><div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">We need to stop looking at Social Security as money in the bank and rather look at Social Security as money stolen from future generations. Heavy social security tax hikes or severe cuts are inevitable in order to avoid a real financial meltdown, and these things should be happening now.</div><div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">I understand Social Security helps many American retirees and disabled individuals, but we need to be honest about Social Security. Social Security doesn't save anyone money, and it never has. It is a welfare program, falsely advertised as retirement savings. Benefits are paid from those that work to those that are not or no longer working. The longer we keep maintaining the status quo the larger the potential disaster becomes.</div></div></div></div><div class="_3x-2" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: &quot;San Francisco&quot;, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, &quot;.SFNSText-Regular&quot;, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: -0.24px;"><div data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;H&quot;}" style="font-family: inherit;"></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="_5r69" style="font-family: inherit; max-width: initial;"><div class="mtm" style="font-family: inherit; margin-top: 10px;"><div data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;H&quot;}" style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="mtm" style="font-family: inherit; margin-top: 10px;"><a ajaxify="/OccupyDemocrats/photos/a.347907068635687.81180.346937065399354/957128344380220/?type=3&amp;size=640%2C640&amp;fbid=957128344380220&amp;player_origin=unknown" class="_4-eo _2t9n _50z9" data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;E&quot;}" data-render-location="newsstand" href="https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/photos/a.347907068635687.81180.346937065399354/957128344380220/?type=3" rel="theater" style="box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0470588) 0px 1px 1px; color: #365899; cursor: pointer; display: block; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-decoration: none; width: 476px;"><div class="uiScaledImageContainer _517g" style="font-family: inherit; height: 476px; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 476px;"><img alt="No automatic alt text available." class="scaledImageFitWidth img" height="476" src="https://scontent.fsnc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/12038355_957128344380220_1746167028889660882_n.jpg?oh=2c4b3aa0ec1321c9fe090d3fe6c4b46c&amp;oe=58D0C2B6" style="border: 0px; height: auto; min-height: 100%; position: relative; width: 476px;" width="476" /></div></a></div></div></div></div></div></div><br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/2624219409161644648/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=2624219409161644648";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/2624219409161644648";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/2624219409161644648";s:4:"link";s:84:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/11/social-security-changing-way-we-look-at.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:6;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-1832953051984659989";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-11-15T09:22:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-11-15T09:22:15.859-08:00";s:5:"title";s:65:"Trump and Hillary - The Election and Campaign of the Impeachables";s:12:"atom_content";s:3970:"During this election cycle, &nbsp;people spent far too much time wringing there hands about voting for the lesser of two evils. The left is continuing to suffer needlessly. There is a simple fact that could have saved and can save alot of agony - both candidates were and are destined for scandal, possible impeachment, and/or single terms.<br /><br />Hillary's email issues would have crippled her presidency with ever persistent hearings and innuendo of criminal charges. However, she wasn't elected and her demise is not at issue.<br /><br />Trump has issues and they are plentiful. He is currently dealing with numerous lawsuits related to his companies and most importantly for Trump University fraud allegations. In his forming administration, there are numerous possible conflicts of interest, he doesn't seem to see problems with nepotism, and he has appointed an alleged anti-Semite to his administration. The problems continue. He was caught on tape admitting to what can only be described as sexual assault (or at least indiscretions) with the President-elect citing the fact that being a celebrity allows him to "do whatever he wants to women". He has further threatened to sue women who have alleged to have suffered his sexual advances. There are so many possible avenues of disgrace for the Democrats to lead him through. <br /><br />The left should look at Donald Trump as a gift. If they play the hand they have been dealt properly, they can ensure the Democratic party several years of Congressional and Executive branch control of the Federal government.<br /><br />Trump has been looked at as a businessman of questionable integrity for my entire life. From his use of eminent domain to take private property for his businesses, to bilking contractors, to bankruptcies, and so forth. He has been willing to attach his name to anything for the right price for years. Unfortunately, some of those things with his name attached are coming back to haunt him. Trump University sought to capitalize on the private university market of the past 10 to 20 years. However, like many private for profit universities, they took money and provided nothing of value in return. The degrees were useless, and now students are coming back for damages. This can be a huge black eye, and source of impeachable evidence against the Trump administration.<br /><br />Trump is moving to have his three competent children made members of his administration, and he is planning to hand control of his businesses to these same children. There are two huge issues here. Nepotism, from what I understand, is pretty strictly prohibited in the federal government. The children having access to the president and sensitive data, and controlling the presidents businesses creates conflicts of interest as large as Mount Everest. This needs to be monitored very heavy for inappropriate use of privileged information, security information leaks, the qualifications of his children for high level positions in the administration, and mishandled conflicts of interest by the Trump kids. The possible problems here are massive and the potential for scandal is equally as massive.<br /><br />Donald Trump has threatened to sue his victims. The left should do all they can to ensure that this happens. He has already confessed to being a serial sexual harasser - he even provided motive. The motive he provided is even chillingly similar to the motive many cite for rapists. Donald Trump felt like he could treat women like objects because his celebrity status gave him the power. The left should do all they can to make him end up in court facing these women.<br /><br />I actually consider myself a conservative. However, we need to be honest. The GOP elected a time bomb waiting to explode. Any sensible Trump advisors will seek to dismantle these traps as quickly as possible. If the wounded left knows their game, they should and will seek to exploit these traps at every opportunity.";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/1832953051984659989/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=1832953051984659989";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/1832953051984659989";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/1832953051984659989";s:4:"link";s:84:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/11/trump-and-hillary-election-and-campaign.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:7;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-1072600545223014035";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-11-14T05:25:00.003-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-11-14T05:37:20.082-08:00";s:5:"title";s:26:"Political Social Disorders";s:12:"atom_content";s:4008:"After this presidential election, one thing is clear - Americans need to learn how to communicate together about politics.<br /><br />On the morning after the election, the biggest symptoms of this disease were clearly manifested. Social media was full of vitriol between Trump and Clinton supporters who were either gloating or in the anger stage of mourning. Feelings were hurt, anger was expressed, and one thing was clear, rationality had left us.<br /><br />On Facebook, I saw a sarcastic post about becoming a new supporter of Bernie's free college platform after seeing what happens in an election with such a so many under educated Americans voting. To this post, a friend responded that he was showing prejudice by claiming stupid people voted for Trump, Another friend went even further. This friend felt like she needed to defend all of their ancestors who received little to no education from this insult. Sadly, the sarcasm was not understood or was received with less humor than was intended. At times, we seem to be talking past each other, and no one seems willing or able to step back, listen, and respond in thoughtful manners.<br /><br />Here is my suggestion.<br /><ol><li>Stop using Social Media as the main outlet for Political posts. Twitter only allows 140 characters. This is not sufficient to express anything but zingers and catchphrases, none of which helps political discourse advance past the realm of a "yo mama so fat" fight. Remember when Facebook was this amazing place where you could connect with people you hadn't seen for decades. Now many of those people are spending their days in political squabbles and they are wondering why they were ever friends in the first place. Facebook is made for pictures of family, pictures of fancy desserts, and staying touch with others. The political posting to Facebook has made it an uncomfortable place.&nbsp;</li><li>Utilize Blogs. The blog website was a great fad in the early 2000's. Generally, bloggers wrote in an eloquent manner, they put in the effort to write informative and thoughtful pieces, and the debate among bloggers was often robust but also stimulating. The best part about it was that you had to seek out blogs and blog posts rather than having everyones opinion in a gigantic scroll that you may only be looking at to waste a few minutes. They would be a great option for the Facebooker that insists on sharing their political opinions, but would like to maintain more civil relationships with people on the FB - link your blog post and only those who want to engage in a political discussion will go and read it. Other Facebook friends and family members can stick to enjoying your more casual posts about your family or cat memes. Blogger.com and Wordpress are great blog hosting sites.</li><li>Do not share your political opinions unless you are willing to put in the work to write thoughtfully. The main problem of social media political posts and commentary is that the dialogue is far too emotion driven. Take the time to develop a thesis, make sure your grammar and spelling is correct, use punctuation, and do some research if you are claiming to cite a fact, and walk away for a while first if you are angry. Poor writing makes it more likely that you will be misunderstood and that you may offend even when you had no intent to cause offense, and poor writing makes you look stupid. Taking time to write will often allow you to calm down, and (maybe) even see things from the perspectives of others.</li></ol><div>This last election was almost completely void of intelligent policy discussions and reasoned logical consideration of how either candidate might make changes (good or bad) to our country. I think this may be reflective of the fact that too many of us are will to express our political ideals in 140 characters or less. If you are going to discuss weighty matters, it is best to take the time to express yourself eloquently and with clarity.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><br /><br /><br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/1072600545223014035/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=1072600545223014035";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/1072600545223014035";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/1072600545223014035";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/11/political-social-disorders.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"1";}}i:8;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-4216069589502209387";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-10-14T17:50:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-10-14T18:14:53.802-07:00";s:5:"title";s:52:"Staying the Course with Trump and Ethical Gymnastics";s:12:"atom_content";s:2810:"For the past few days/weeks, Donald Trump has been under fire for a recorded conversation with Billy Bush about having his way with any woman he wants (more specifically how he sexually assaults women). This is not surprising - Donald Trump is in the least a two time adulterer and at the most a serial groper borderline rapist. It is surprising that this did not stop him in the primaries, and that these revelations did not come up sooner. The 2012 candidate that was a Domino's Pizza CEO had much tamer sexual harassment accusations surface and those destroyed him very early on, but (uncomfortable cringe) he was African American and maybe his quick demise is another glaring indictment of the racism the GOP would like to distance itself from.<br /><br />The surprise of all this is the gold-medal ethical gymnastics displayed by prominent talk personalities and Trump leaning bloggers. The common theme is "nobody has a right to condemn Trump because Bill Clinton was done so much worse" or, "sure, what Trump said was bad, but Clinton did far worse" or "Hillary is a criminal" (the most unintelligent argument of the bunch).<br /><br />Think of this, the party of the Christian right, the formerly moral majority is making the argument that a man who either lied about committing horrific acts (or in fact committed) horrific acts of sexual deviance is justifiable as a candidate to carry the Christian rights' banner of moral superiority. The moral triple Lutzs' are enough to make your head spin.<br /><br />I have every right to condemn Donald Trump as an unfit choice for President, in fact it is my duty as an American. I cannot and do not judge him on an eternal or spiritual level - I hope he has changed his ways and behavior towards women (I doubt it, but one can hope). However, I have the duty to vote for men or women that have the character to keep the oath of office. This man has no respect for any oaths, virtues, promises, or covenants - he doesn't have the capability of faithfully executing the office.<br /><br />Furthermore, Trumpster leaning Republican's of the Christian right that pursue socially right wing legislation have lost all moral high ground to do so. Hard right wing associates that rail against pro abortion and pro-gay marriage activism will also find themselves without even less moral justification to publicly denounce their foes if they continue defending the indefensible actions of this orange man (or lies about actions by the GOP nominee).<br /><br />Please friends, do not let yourself stoop to level of accepting a candidate you struggle to justify on a level higher than Bill Clinton. There are other options - vote 3rd party, write-in the candidate you really like. I cannot take you seriously if you continue to try and justify Donald Trump.<br /><br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/4216069589502209387/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=4216069589502209387";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/4216069589502209387";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/4216069589502209387";s:4:"link";s:82:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/10/staying-course-with-trump-and-ethical.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:9;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-214040738567931864";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-09-05T09:38:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-09-05T09:38:27.260-07:00";s:5:"title";s:45:"Best Intentions -- Campaign Positions Series.";s:12:"atom_content";s:87:"I am going to get back to the campaign positions series, I will finish by election day!";s:12:"link_replies";s:147:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/214040738567931864/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=214040738567931864";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/214040738567931864";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/214040738567931864";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/09/best-intentions-campaign-positions.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:10;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-6528887524410865095";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-07-31T12:28:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-07-31T15:35:52.867-07:00";s:5:"title";s:28:"Whistleblower v Commissioner";s:12:"atom_content";s:813:"I am making the effort to study for the US Tax Court exam for non-attorneys for the second time. My test date is in 2018. As part of my study regimen, I ready daily decisions off of the US Tax Court website.<br /><br />There is one this week involving a whistleblower who is pursuing the reward of 15-30% of collected tax revenue based on information he provided to the IRS. I love the opinion, because the whistleblower successfully compelled the IRS to release IDR's the IRS claimed was irrelevant. It has long been my suspicion that the IRS will do all that they can to avoid paying rewards, an I love seeing a taxpayer come after them for his piece.<br /><br />See&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/OpinionViewer.aspx?ID=10879">http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/OpinionViewer.aspx?ID=10879</a>";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/6528887524410865095/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=6528887524410865095";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/6528887524410865095";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/6528887524410865095";s:4:"link";s:73:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/07/whistleblower-v-commissioner.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:11;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-6349060103634610208";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-07-30T15:43:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-07-30T15:43:41.276-07:00";s:5:"title";s:58:"Romney is Trump's excuse for not releasing his tax returns";s:12:"atom_content";s:2933:"In an interview on <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-romney-lost-because-of-taxes-731259459525">Meet the Press</a>, Trump asserts that Mitt Romney lost because he released his tax returns. Therefore, this is why Trump will not release his returns.<br /><br />While he is correct that some people used Mitt Romney's income against him, this is rather lame excuse for Trump's hard line against providing his tax returns. The position that people voted against Mitt Romney because he has been too successful in business and finance flies against all logic and sensibility. Looking at exit polling data and other information from 2012 points to many other issues, most of which include comments the were portrayed as Romney saying, "I think 47% of American's are free-loaders". As a free-loader, I think that was actually a correct observation, but alot of people found that offensive.<br /><br />Trump's assertion that the tax return was too damning for Romney's campaign is a red herring. There must be other issues in play.<br /><br />Early on in the primaries, Trump mentioned that his personal tax return is under audit and has been under audit every year. Contrary to Trump's assertions, the IRS doesn't have a policy of auditing people on an annual basis simply because they are rich. They audit people annually because they see smoke (you know the old saying, "where there is smoke, there is fire") in the individuals financial behavior and record keeping.<br /><br />This <a href="http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-trump-audited-irs-every-year-heres-10-potential-reasons">website </a>(despite possible political leanings) makes some good observations about possible reasons why the Donald cannot get off the IRS radar. &nbsp;Long story short, the IRS audits Donald each year because his business and personal conduct have major badges (red flags) of concealment, under-reported income, and over-inflated deductions. The IRS is run in a business like manner, IRS audits against Mr. Trump would cease if he managed to go through an audit without having major adjustments in the governments favor. However, as IRS revenue agents find concealed income and illegitimate deductions on an annual basis, the IRS (like any business with a new revenue stream) opens up each successive year.<br /><br />Here is another <a href="http://theresurgent.com/here-is-why-trump-will-not-release-his-tax-returns/">article </a>by a corporate tax lawyer that theorizes what we might find on Trump'a return.<br /><br />I admit that all of this is speculation from (at least) a pair of tax professionals, and maybe there is some weight to a "Obama orders the IRS to audit Trump" conspiracy that tin-foil hat wearing Trump supporters would love to believe. However, the fact is that unless he releases his returns, the theories are going to continue with greater intensity. What will the orange man do?<br /><br /><br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/6349060103634610208/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=6349060103634610208";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/6349060103634610208";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/6349060103634610208";s:4:"link";s:76:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/07/romney-is-trumps-excuse-for-not.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:12;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-8963562521372444537";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-07-30T13:12:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-07-30T15:45:02.025-07:00";s:5:"title";s:28:"Trump Positions "Tax Reform"";s:12:"atom_content";s:8020:"In my on going series that I meant to finish before the end of the RNC, I am going to take a look at Trump's tax reform plans. This is coming from his "<a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform">Positions</a>" page on his website. In Trump fashion, he provides alot of vauge assertions with alot of missing details.<br /><br /><b><u>What I Like</u></b><br /><br />The Trump plan reduces the number of brackets from 7 to 4. The highest bracket is 25%. Here is how they look:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><table id="tax_reform_table" style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; color: black; font-family: Montserrat, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; width: 570px;"><thead><tr class="even"><th><strong style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Income Tax Rate</strong></th><th><strong style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Long Term Cap Gains/ Dividends Rate</strong></th><th><strong style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Single Filers</strong></th><th><strong style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Married Filers</strong></th><th><strong style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Heads of Household</strong></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr class="odd"><td style="padding: 8px;">0%</td><td style="padding: 8px;">0%</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$0 to $25,000</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$0 to $50,000</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$0 to $37,500</td></tr><tr class="even" style="background: rgb(238, 238, 238);"><td style="padding: 8px;">10%</td><td style="padding: 8px;">0%</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$25,001 to $50,000</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$50,001 to $100,000</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$37,501 to $75,000</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td style="padding: 8px;">20%</td><td style="padding: 8px;">15%</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$50,001 to $150,000</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$100,001 to $300,000</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$75,001 to $225,000</td></tr><tr class="even" style="background: rgb(238, 238, 238);"><td style="padding: 8px;">25%</td><td style="padding: 8px;">20%</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$150,001 and up</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$300,001 and up</td><td style="padding: 8px;">$225,001 and up</td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote>Married filers that make under &nbsp;50k will no longer have a filing requirement, and taxpayers making under 100k will enjoy a 10% rate. This is definitely a tax break for the middle class. Right now the 10% bracket ends at around 70k in taxable income.<br /><br />The next items is good. Although, I can't imagine how he intends to circumvent social security and Medicare tax, he claims that business income (corporate, partnership, and sole proprietors) will be taxed at 15%.<br /><b><u><br /></u></b><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><ol style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Montserrat, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; font-size: 14px; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.</li></ol></blockquote>For sole-proprietors, who pay income and SE tax with high combined actual tax rates, a change to a flat 15% would be a very helpful change.<br /><br />The Trump tax proposals also claim to plan an end to the Death tax and AMT.<br /><br /><br />All of these items are great, and if they are revenue neutral, they should be &nbsp;very helpful to the economy.<br /><br /><b><u>Changes I dislike:</u></b><br /><br />The first problem I see if that he makes a vague claim that some exemptions and deductions will become obsolete with his new tax plan: <br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="background-color: white; color: #4e4d56; font-family: &quot;montserrat&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: -0.28px; line-height: 28px;">With this huge reduction in rates, many of the current exemptions and deductions will become unnecessary or redundant. Those within the 10% bracket will keep all or most of their current deductions. Those within the 20% bracket will keep more than half of their current deductions. Those within the 25% bracket will keep fewer deductions. Charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions will remain unchanged for all taxpayers.</span></blockquote>The paragraph is rather vague. He could be discussed eliminating the state income tax deduction or some lesser used miscellaneous deductions, or he could be discussing an elimination of a vast number of deductions that could lead to a virtual flat tax (which I have renounced many times in the past on this blog).<br /><br />The second problem with the item above is that he is only promising to protect the home mortgage and charitable deduction. I believe charitable giving is the most sacred of all deductions, and so I completely agree with that option. However, the mortgage interest deduction is a special interest gift to the banking industry. It rewards taxpayers who for making purchase and for getting in debt for the remainder of their lives, There are deductions that should be given greater deference like...I don't know... the purchase of health insurance forced on us by our government. This something he claimed would happen as part of his better-than-Obamacare health plan.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="background-color: white; color: #4e4d56; font-family: &quot;montserrat&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: -0.28px; line-height: 28px;">.....will now file a one page form saving them time, stress, uncertainty and an average of $110 in preparation costs. Over 31 million households get the same simplification and keep on average nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money.</span></blockquote>Whenever Congress floats the idea of a simplified tax form, or a postcard tax return, you need to be wary. This will turn into a grift by the Treasury to catch the unwary into paying more in income tax than they should. A simplification in tax forms will end up in a un-official income tax hike to you the taxpayer.<br /><br />The last issue I have with his plan, is that is narrow focuses on corporate tax loopholes and un-utilized tax breaks for the rich. There a lot of other ways that the government can increase revenue. Honestly, one way is simply funding the IRS sufficiently. During the Bush years, the IRS had the funding provide proper enforcement and tax revenues were through the roof. This is simply because the IRS had the man-power to collect the taxes owed.<br /><br /><b><u>One Thing Missing</u></b><br /><br />I'm not sure if he should have addressed social security and Medicare tax here. However, an increase in Social Security and Medicare tax is extremely necessary if Social Security is going to be saved or viable for the many millions of Americans now retiring from the baby-boomer era. Whether the rates increase, more items of income are subject to it, or the earned income ceiling is eliminated, Social security tax revenue must rise drastically.<br /><br /><span style="color: #4e4d56; letter-spacing: -0.02em; line-height: 28px;"><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span>";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/8963562521372444537/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=8963562521372444537";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/8963562521372444537";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/8963562521372444537";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/07/trump-positions-tax-reform.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:13;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-5724134240559227787";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-07-24T12:59:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-07-24T12:59:12.625-07:00";s:5:"title";s:39:"The Anti-Trump and Anti-Hilary Strategy";s:12:"atom_content";s:3464:"I have (in vain most times) been trying to promote a strategy to defeat Hilary and Trump at the same time.<br /><br />Most people I know are not fond of either of the two candidates running for president. They general fall into one of three camps. "I am going to write-in Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz" or "I will vote for Trump or Hilary because they are better than the alternative" or last and most certainly least, "I love Trump or Hilary because of ridiculous reason A, B, and/or C". This is addressed the former two groups. The latter group is usually full of myopic idiots that have lost the ability to reason.<br /><br />The only way to avoid both candidates as president is if they are denied 270 electoral votes. The only way for both candidates to be denied 270 electoral votes is if another third-party candidate wins enough states to slim the pool of available Electoral College votes to under 270 electoral college votes. If this doesn't happen, we are guaranteed with Hilary or Trump.<br /><br />The most common argument both the GOP and the Democratic party make against voting third party is that a vote for anyone other than Trump (Hilary) is a vote for Hilary (Trump). For the nations entire history now that argument has worked. No third party candidate has won even a single state in a general presidential election.<br /><br />One reason why third party candidates don't win states is that there are always so many. There are 36 minor political parties and 5 minor political parties. In the vast majority of elections, th majority of voters generally pay attention to the first 2 parties. However, a couple to a few million voters always vote third party candidates. This year, given the choices, many people are looking at third party options. This is where the strategy lies.<br /><br />The anti-Trump and/or anti-Hilary camps need to come together to support one third party candidate. With high unfavorability ratings for both candidates, there are obviously a vast majority of American's that are not happy with their choices from the GOP and Democrats. Sadly, a majority of those will choose one or the other to prevent the less desired choice from winning. However, there may be just enough who just can't bring themselves to fall-in with Hillary and Trump to out-number those that do vote for along GOP and Democrat party lines.<br /><br />The problem is that they all have differing views and opinions. Many will write in the candidate they liked that conceded in the primaries, many Mormon's plan to write in Mitt Romney, and another group will choose the third party option that they most prefer. This will dilute the effect on the popular vote for an outsiders chance of snatching states and electoral votes from the GOP and Democrats. This would likely leave us with Hilary or Trump even though the winner may actually only win 50+ million votes out of 150 to 200 million votes.<br /><br />However, if the voters that hate the power party choices vote for a single candidate, the third-party candidate could win some states and those states' electoral votes. Neither of the power party candidates will win the election outright. If this happens the House of Representatives chooses the Pres from the top three candidates and the Senate picks the VP from the top two candidates. If the House of Representatives cannot come to a winner the VP chosen by the Senate acts as President until Congress votes a winner and escapes the deadlock.";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/5724134240559227787/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=5724134240559227787";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/5724134240559227787";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/5724134240559227787";s:4:"link";s:84:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-anti-trump-and-anti-hilary-strategy.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"1";}}i:14;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-8141399222748266804";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-07-18T13:06:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-07-18T13:06:39.612-07:00";s:5:"title";s:42:"RNC - Trump Positions "Healthcare Reforms"";s:12:"atom_content";s:6536:"In this series of posts regarding Donald Trump's actual positions, this one will be one where I actually find a lot of common ground with the orange man.<br /><br />The biggest item that I applaud is making health insurance fully deductible under the US tax code for all individuals. This is an idea that will provide meaningful tax savings, especially for employees of companies that refuse to provide healthcare benefits. Due to the vagueness of many Trump positions, I am left to speculate how this would happen. I hope he would make health insurance an adjustment from income like health insurance is for the self-employed. However, even making it an unlimited itemized deduction would be a great change.<br /><br />Other items I agree with include:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><ol style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Montserrat, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; font-size: 14px; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.</li><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; font-size: 14px; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.</li><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; font-size: 14px; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.</li></ol></blockquote>&nbsp;The individual mandate is something that was reprehensible. There are many American's who know their annual health care costs and are quite capable of budgeting accordingly. Granted, emergencies arise. However, that should only mandate cheaper catastrophic coverage requirements at most instead of the more expensive plans required by ACA. The power of the purse for healthcare decisions should be with individuals (with a possibly a catastrophic individual mandate at most).<br /><br />I'm not sure if this will make all the difference, but removing interstate barriers for health insurance purchases can only help reduce costs. Last but not least, HSA's were a wonderful tax savings device created in the Bush years that was all but destroyed with Obamacare. I love the idea of making them effective tax savings engines again.<br /><br />The items I don't care for include:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><ol style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Montserrat, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; font-size: 14px; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.</li><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; font-size: 14px; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.</li><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; font-size: 14px; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.</li></ol></blockquote>The first item seems to be a hint at keeping some of the bureaucracy that opponents of Obamacare hate. Many MD's and mid-level providers will complain that the over-reach of Obamacare into their work has reduced their ability to focus on the patient in order to satisfy bureaucratic requirements of the ACA. This price transparency requirement seems like more of the same overreach.<br /><br />Medicaid before Obamacare had a sharp-cliff where recipients lose all benefits if there income exceeded a very small sum of income. I believe sharp benefit cut offs are a disincentive to work for many welfare recipients and that the current system gives recipients some breathing room to get into the work-force, gain experience, and increase their income until they can get jobs with solid benefits and income.<br /><br />That last item that I disagree with is the idea of removing barriers for drug providers. Barriers in the pharmaceutical industry keep drugs safe. Even with the barriers we now have, drug providers have the guarantee of suits and paying damages for issues with side effects. Considering who is making this recommendation, gives me pause as well. "Who wants Trump chemo?"<br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/8141399222748266804/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=8141399222748266804";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/8141399222748266804";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/8141399222748266804";s:4:"link";s:83:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/07/rnc-trump-positions-healthcare-reforms.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:15;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-265852656588792043";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-07-17T20:29:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-07-17T20:29:09.251-07:00";s:5:"title";s:43:"RNC -- Trumps Positions "Pay for the Wall".";s:12:"atom_content";s:7769:"In anticipation of the RNC tomorrow (frankly this may be one of the more exciting RNCs in my lifetime) I am going to post about each of Donald Trump's campaign positions. This should be helpful to anyone considering Trump's candidacy. To be clear, I do not advocate voting for DJT or HRC. I am voting Libertarian this year. Not because I believe in the party's platform, but because neither DJT and HRC are worthy of the office.<br /><br />The material is coming directly from Trump's website:<br /><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; font-family: Montserrat, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em; line-height: 28px; margin-bottom: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 - the&nbsp;"know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:</span></div><ul style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Montserrat, sans-serif; margin: 0px 0px 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31 CFR&nbsp;130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money&nbsp;transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include&nbsp;wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no&nbsp;alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first&nbsp;provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.</span></li><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive&nbsp;approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals&nbsp;working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from&nbsp;illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico.&nbsp;There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico.</span></li><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute&nbsp;the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump&nbsp;Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the&nbsp;regulation will&nbsp;not go into effect.</span></li><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse - thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past).</span></li><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty - our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants.</span></li><li style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px 0px 5px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down.</span></li></ul><div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #4e4d56; font-family: Montserrat, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em; line-height: 28px; margin-bottom: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Conclusion: Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again."</span></div></blockquote><br /><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">So, to sum up, on the first day of a Donald Trump presidency he will start a trade war, damage diplomatic ties, and massively increase the size of government by adding new bureaucratic red tape and confiscating the earnings for/of millions of Mexicans living in the US legally and illegally.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Personally, I find this position to be one of the more short-sighted and oppressive positions. First off, he will be burdening the already over-burdened, and under-funded Treasury department with the burden of enforcing this policy. Second, he will be garnishing the wages of hard-working individuals in an attempt to extort the Mexican government to pay for his fence. That's like me stealing my neighbors mail in order to extort him into paying for my fence. Sure, his dog pees on my yard, but it is my yard and my responsibility.&nbsp;</span>";s:12:"link_replies";s:147:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/265852656588792043/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=265852656588792043";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/265852656588792043";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/265852656588792043";s:4:"link";s:78:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/07/rnc-trumps-positions-pay-for-wall.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:16;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-8739920422364720422";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-02-12T12:46:00.001-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-02-12T12:51:33.504-08:00";s:5:"title";s:16:"Hello Again.....";s:12:"atom_content";s:2923:"It has been many years since I have visited the blogosphere. I must admit I miss writing. I don't know that anyone blogs anymore, but tweeting is so stupid and I just despise the political discourse that happens via Facebook.<br /><br />I have lost most of my faith in the American political process. 10+ years ago when I was blogging daily, I would have laughed myself to tears if you would have told me Donald Trump was looking the be the GOP nominee. A nation that is willing to turn to that Oompa Loompa is a nation out of answers and out of ideas.<br /><br />While I think much of the blame goes to baby boomers, the self-centered hippy generation given to us by the greatest generation before them. However, I'm afraid the worst generation has just reached voting age. The Millennials, a generation of left-wing brain dead parrots, a generation of spoiled brat-only children, a generation coddled, they are turning into the strongest voting demographic in America. They helped elect Barack Obama, and if the GOP is brain-dead enough to nominate Mr. Trump, they are sure to help elect Bernie Sanders or Hilary Clinton.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, I believe Bernie Sanders is the most sincere and honest candidate in the entire field. Sincerity and honesty would win me over if it wasn't for his batshit crazy social policies. While I think Hilary is the most dishonest candidate in the field, I believe she would maintain the status quo - and maintaining the status quo sounds far better then any more hope and change.<br /><br />On to Ted Cruz. When I here announcements from evangelicals that a certain candidate is a man of God, I dry heave. Making a pronouncement like that is such a huge turn off because, as president, this man will likely do so many ungodly things that will make Christian virtue look more like a vomit stain then a beacon of goodness. Evangelical endorsements are the biggest turn off for me.<br /><br />I am fond of Marco Rubio and Mr. Kaisich. I am fond of them if for no other reason than they strike me nice moderate candidates. We need moderates, especially in the White House. Presidents on the extreme are either in-effective or they have to act as dictators to be effective. Moderates, on the other hand, are able to make compromises that, ideally, bring to pass the best solutions to our nation's issues. While extremists hate compromise, it seems better to me than the constant gridlock we now see,<br /><br />Regardless, I do not have much faith that any of the current presidential candidates will do anything to make our country better. I plan on writing more heavily. I'm not writing to look for fights, but to sort through my ever increasing apathy to politics. Comment if you wish, I enjoy the dialogue Sometimes dialogue in the blogosphere has completely changed my mind on an issue, and I hope to have that kind of dialogue here. If nothing else, I enjoy writing essays.";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/8739920422364720422/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=8739920422364720422";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/8739920422364720422";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/8739920422364720422";s:4:"link";s:56:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2016/02/hello-again.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:17;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-2915801007580407367";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-02-07T12:55:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-02-07T14:17:10.285-08:00";s:5:"title";s:81:"Email to Sen. Urquhart -- Utah Reports Traffic Citations on the Criminal Database";s:12:"atom_content";s:3083:"<br /><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">Dear Steve U (my favorite legislator),</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">I can't find your blog anymore, and although I have stopped blogging regularly I miss your insights into state politics.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;">I have an issue that I recently discovered with the state's criminal records database.&nbsp;</span><br /><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">Apparently, Utah traffic violations (which are classified as misdemeanors) are now being included in the state's criminal database, which has not been made common knowledge. When an employer (or a graduate school, in the case of my wife) does a background check, the background check comes back with criminal convictions marked as yes. The&nbsp;description of the misdemeanor is accurate, but it includes any ugly&nbsp;additional&nbsp;item for &nbsp;"bail forfeiture" even with no jail time and the individual paid the fine without warrants being issued.<br /><br />This started when SB-201 passed in the 2012 General Session. This bill appears to have been passed with the intent of allowing drivers the opportunity to expunge their traffic violations through the state's criminal database and removing the traffic violation records from the state DMV. Unfortunately, the DMV is still planning on maintaining it's records of traffic violations. Now there is a traffic violation record on the state's crimnal database, and with the Driver's License division. This was obviously not considered during the passage of SB 201.<br /><br /></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">In the case of my wife, she had no idea that this would show as a&nbsp;misdemeanor or that this would be on the state's criminal database (and she claimed no misdemeanors on her grad school application) and the background check caused the graduate school to call (nearly revoke acceptance in her Master's program) and to accuse her of lying on her application. All this for a "fix-it" ticket where she missed the deadline to repair a burned out brake lamp. She paid the fine timely without any&nbsp;warrant&nbsp;being issued.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">The reporting of traffic violations to the state's criminal database nearly cost my wife her admittance to graduate school, and I am sure it will cost many citizens jobs and untold hassles if this is not remedied. Please look into this issue.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">Thanks,</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">Phillip Bell</div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/2915801007580407367/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=2915801007580407367";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/2915801007580407367";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/2915801007580407367";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2013/02/email-to-sen-urquhart-utah-reports.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"1";}}i:18;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-2427632161495742184";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-12-28T13:44:00.001-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-12-28T13:44:20.280-08:00";s:5:"title";s:14:"On Gun Control";s:12:"atom_content";s:636:"While I think we should consider limits on the kinds of weapons and ammunition that the average American owns, we need to be realistic. Gun legislation (short of a complete 2nd Amendment Repeal) will only be a Band Aid on stopping events like Sandy Hook, VT, and Columbine and a repeal of the second amendment will never happen -- nor should a repeal happen. Therefore the only viable solution for stopping mass shootings at schools, is to provide each public school in the country with onsite law enforcement or arms for educators, administrators, or both. Without armed school employees or officers, shootings at schools will continue";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/2427632161495742184/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=2427632161495742184";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/2427632161495742184";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/2427632161495742184";s:4:"link";s:59:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2012/12/on-gun-control.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"4";}}i:19;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-8695386890275015579";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-09-28T18:43:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-10-02T13:52:12.792-07:00";s:5:"title";s:26:"2012 -- Flat Tax Proposals";s:12:"atom_content";s:5338:"The GOP presidential hopefuls are in the thick of taking up conservative causes like taxes, social security reform, abolition of the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">USDOE</span>, and many others. In the realm of taxes I am having a change of heart.<br /><br />Most GOP candidates are decrying the current tax system and its loopholes for poor working families and the percentage of Americans who actually have to pay any income taxes (non-Social Security/Medicare taxes). The solution, for most candidates, is a flat tax, a tiered flat tax, a consumption tax, or a hybrid of one or more options.<br /><br />In the past I have expressed opposition to flat tax proposals in that they generally create a tax cut for wealthy taxpayers at the expense of poorer taxpayers. This is still the case, wealth taxpayers are in fact (when you take income phaseouts of certain deductions and credits) paying a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">flatish</span> tax of 35% or more. Therefore (taking Herman Cain's catchy 9-9-9 proposal) the rich would enjoy a large tax break and Joe the Plumber would go from large tax-credit induced refunds to paying 900 dollars a year income taxes (est 40k income). This is still a factual issue with flat taxes.<br /><br />However, I'm not sure that "staying the (current tax policy) course" is the right approach anymore. Just this last year, we had a Congress that raised our nation's borrowing level to an extremely high level. (I'm not sure. Was it 14 trillion dollars? That is somewhere around 14 to 7 million times more than most Americans make in a lifetime) President <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Obama's</span> solution for the current unemployment problem was to request another 300 billion dollars in government spending. The final straw on tax policy (for me) was the president's comments before the debt ceiling was raised that, "he couldn't guarantee Social Security checks" without the extra debt. Now I'm no government budget expert, but when a business needs to keep borrowing just to stay afloat it doesn't take a Harvard education to realize financial catastrophe is nigh at hand.<br /><br />Now, I disagree with the "lucky duck" theory that taxing the poor is the only way to get the poor off their collectively apathetic arses to demand that the Federal government change. The desire to induce anger is not the best guide for wise fiscal policy. I believe adopting a simplified tax system will do three things: 1.) provide stability for businesses to grow and individuals to invest, 2.) Provide capital to invest in American businesses, and 3.) decrease the "Tax Gap"and end some large drains on the Federal Treasury.<br /><br />One of the biggest problems in the US economy is the lack of stability in the US tax code. Businesses are ever on edge about what tax laws will end or what new tax laws will be enacted. By enacting a flat or simplified tax system, businesses and individuals can make financial, and more importantly investment decisions, without taxes being such an uncertain variable in the decision making equation.<br /><br /><br />As mentioned earlier, the flat tax's tax savings for higher income taxpayers would leave tax dollars in taxpayer's pockets. The saved tax funds would in turn (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">theoretically</span>) likely be used to invest in <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">entrepreneurism</span>, stocks and bonds, or just spent in the open market.<br /><br />For years National Taxpayer Advocates have stated that the biggest problem in the tax code is the law's complexity. Most Americans want to keep square with the government and pay their fair share. However, the tax code's complexity not only makes it impossible for the average lay taxpayer to be confident that they are preparing their return properly, but it also leaves a perception that other taxpayers are getting away with not paying their share. Such a perception can lead some taxpayers to cheat on their taxes since it appears that many others are doing like wise. The flat tax would provide wage earner taxpayers with easy to understand tax system and change the perception of inequality to one of equity.<br /><br />The flat tax would also be a means of ending the welfare provisions of the tax code -- the Earned Income Credit, and the Additional Child Tax Credits. These provisions of the code provide lower income taxpayers with children (income between 15 and 50K) with thousands of dollars in tax refund dollars above and beyond what these taxpayers actually paid in. It is estimated that the Earned income tax credit alone cost the Treasury more than 40 billion dollars a year before taking into account the IRS budgetary costs of pursuing fraudulent <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">EIC</span> claims. The refundable portion of these provisions should be done away with.<br /><br />Whether or not a flat tax would pass is another story. Democrats will fight against such proposals simply for the fact that the flat tax will raise taxes on the poor. However a reasoned approach to this issue might make a flat tax viable by using new credits that encourage retirement savings might keep poorer taxpayers from feeling a pinch.";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/8695386890275015579/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=8695386890275015579";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/8695386890275015579";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/8695386890275015579";s:4:"link";s:68:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2011/09/2012-flat-tax-proposals.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:20;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-564833805026498092";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-08-26T08:31:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-08-26T08:51:30.981-07:00";s:5:"title";s:41:"Huntsman: Even the Rich Should Sacrifice.";s:12:"atom_content";s:1627:"The ever scrappy son of Utah's richest man Jon M Huntsman Jr. says if he is elected even the rich will have a share in sacrificing in order to get our country back on track. As mentioned in my last post that doesn't include tax hikes -- he's saving that for the "working poor families and seniors". Why do I bother talking about him, he is going to be out soon?
<br />
<br /><blockquote></blockquote>Speaking in an interview with the PBS NewsHour, Huntsman said that potentially means-testing Medicare could be one example of a sacrifice the wealthy could make.
<br />
<br />"As president, I wouldn't hesitate to call on a sacrifice from all of our people, even those at the very highest end of the income spectrum," said Huntsman, himself a multi-millionaire. "I'm not saying higher taxes, but there are contributions they can make too." 
<br /><blockquote></blockquote>
<br />
<br />I wonder why he is doing so poorly in the polls? He wants to tax poor working families, and he is even willing to make the ever deprived rich sacrifice in ways other than tax hikes. What more do Republican's want?
<br />
<br />The one thing Huntsman has right is Medicare and Social Security means testing. Social Security is a wreck, maybe one of the best solutions (or beginning to a solution) is to stop paying benefits to retirees who are wealthy enough without Social Security and Medicare. Just as it is wasteful paying the poor for being poor, it is foolish to pay welfare to those who don't need welfare (and lets get real, social security isn't a pension or retirement savings plan)
<br />
<br />More on Social Security later.
<br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:147:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/564833805026498092/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=564833805026498092";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/564833805026498092";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/564833805026498092";s:4:"link";s:80:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2011/08/huntsman-even-rich-should-sacrifice.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:21;a:14:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-7748215716619572552";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-08-25T07:49:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-08-25T11:54:51.367-07:00";s:5:"title";s:14:"Of Lucky Ducks";s:12:"atom_content";s:2853:"Many of the GOP presidential wannabes are going at a new approach to raising income taxes -- tax everyone. Michelle Bachmann contends that, " we need to broaden the tax base so that everybody pays something, even if it is a dollar. Everyone should pay something, because we all benefit." Son of a billionaire, Jon M Huntsman Jr. went straight to the point, "the half of Americans no longer paying income taxes, mainly working poor families and seniors, should be brought onto the income tax rolls." The Slate article linked above contends that this is part of theory that originated in WSJ editorials that called the working poor and those that don't pay income taxes "lucky duckies" and that real change to the tax code will only come when the lucky duckies share the tax burden and are enraged enough to demand change.
<br />
<br />The tax code has become a system of bribery towards the working poor. Certain tax provisions end up providing poor people thousands of taxpayer dollars that they didn't contribute. In 2004 it is estimated that the Federal Government paid out more than 36 billion dollars in Earned Income Tax Credit to over 21 million US households. The EIC coupled with the additional child tax credit, provides working poor families with a great deal of Treasury dollars just for being poor. This needs to change. While it is important to provide help to the needy, we don't need the government to be handing out cash to every single household that makes less than six figures whether the asked for it or not.
<br />
<br />Having railed against the negative tax provisions of the tax code, it would be folly to require the working poor to shoulder a proportionate load of the income tax burden. First, most lower middle class families struggle to make ends meet without requiring them to set an additional 10-20% aside for income taxes. Adding these people to the tax roles may produce an enraged working poor, but it would also burden the IRS in pursuing tax bills that are more than likely noncollectable. Second, taxing the poor will create more poverty. I went through this ad nauseum when former Utah governor Huntsman started pushing a fair or flat tax. Ten to twenty percent of 100k is a lot less painful than ten to twenty percent of 40k.
<br />
<br />The best move our nation can make in regards to taxes and the working poor is the repeal of income based refundable tax credits. This will end the multi-billion dollar drain on the Treasury without increasing the cost of living on lower middle-class families. Beyond that I foresee flat taxes as producing tax cuts that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. The GOP candidates may argue that forcing the rich to pay all the taxes is class warfare, but taxing people who in some cases make 1/100th of the wealthy peers at the same rate is just plain tyrannical.
<br />";s:12:"link_related";s:31:"http://www.slate.com/id/2302131";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/7748215716619572552/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=7748215716619572552";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/7748215716619572552";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/7748215716619572552";s:4:"link";s:59:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2011/08/of-lucky-ducks.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:22;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-7994467655741035177";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-08-25T07:47:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-08-25T07:49:46.170-07:00";s:5:"title";s:23:"It's been a while......";s:12:"atom_content";s:164:"I have been wanting to come and write for some time, but caring for two autistic kids can keep you busy from sun up to sun down. I've missed you blogosphere.
<br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/7994467655741035177/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=7994467655741035177";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/7994467655741035177";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/7994467655741035177";s:4:"link";s:59:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2011/08/its-been-while.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:23;a:14:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-5442120691453183406";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-01-26T14:00:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-01-26T15:23:03.393-08:00";s:5:"title";s:40:"Rep. Menlove's Proposal -- Message Bill?";s:12:"atom_content";s:200:"Rep Menlove of Garland wants Medicaid recipients to perform community service as a form of payment for the benefit of having Medicaid.<br /><br />So, what's the message ???????????????????????????????";s:12:"link_related";s:83:"http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50260830-78/health-medicaid-menlove-care.html.csp";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/5442120691453183406/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=5442120691453183406";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/5442120691453183406";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/5442120691453183406";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2011/01/rep-menloves-proposal-message-bill.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"1";}}i:24;a:14:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488.post-5866899594521624855";s:9:"published";s:29:"2010-11-09T20:00:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2010-11-09T20:21:53.808-08:00";s:5:"title";s:34:"Utah State Taxes -- Residency Test";s:12:"atom_content";s:1730:"The Utah State Tax Commission is proposing a Residency Test for income tax purposes. This test would have three levels:<br /><br /><ol><li>The state in which the taxpayer's dependents, spouse, or taxpayer is enrolled in public school or state universities.</li><li>The address where the taxpayer is registered to vote.</li><li>Whether the taxpayer has property in Utah, and is benefiting from the 45% valuation exemption on a primary residence.</li></ol>I applaud the state's efforts. This has been an issue where the Utah State Tax Commission has repeatedly overstepped its bounds. They have pursued residency in cases as minuscule as the taxpayer having toys (atv's, snowmobiles, etc) licensed in Utah. Clear and reasonable guidance is long overdue.<br /><br />One problem I see with this rule, and the problems may depend on the final language of the bill that passes the legislature, is the rule establishing residency if the taxpayer of spouse is enrolled in a Utah university or college. For example, if the final law says any of the three establish residency, than someone from Mesquite NV could become an unwitting resident (or recipient of a Utah state tax examination) by virtue of attending the nearest institute of higher education -- Dixie State College.<br /><br />I think it would be wiser for the residency test to end at the enrollement of the taxpayer and the spouse's children in Utah K-12 schools. That way commuters to Utah institutes of higher education don't need to fear being improperly assessed Utah taxes.<br /><br />Regardless, this proposed legislation is good step forward in saving taxpayers money in needless litigation and protecting taxpayers from overreaching Utah State Tax Commission auditors.";s:12:"link_related";s:78:"http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50642583-76/tax-residency-utah-bill.html.csp";s:12:"link_replies";s:149:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/5866899594521624855/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19037488&postID=5866899594521624855";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/5866899594521624855";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default/5866899594521624855";s:4:"link";s:76:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2010/11/utah-state-taxes-residency-test.html";s:11:"author_name";s:16:"Phillip Bell, EA";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/12671431274300195147";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}}s:7:"channel";a:14:{s:2:"id";s:34:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19037488";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2018-10-29T00:16:29.402-07:00";s:5:"title";s:11:"Green Jello";s:8:"subtitle";s:55:"An open forum on issues that I feel like writing about ";s:42:"link_http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed";s:51:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default";s:9:"link_self";s:60:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default?alt=atom";s:4:"link";s:32:"http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/";s:8:"link_hub";s:32:"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/";s:9:"link_next";s:90:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/19037488/posts/default?alt=atom&start-index=26&max-results=25";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"pramahaphil";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/05852898493878493736";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:9:"generator";s:7:"Blogger";s:10:"opensearch";a:3:{s:12:"totalresults";s:3:"307";s:10:"startindex";s:1:"1";s:12:"itemsperpage";s:2:"25";}}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:4:"Atom";s:12:"feed_version";N;s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:4:"etag";s:70:"W/"94f366a3b4dbb3e33474c0dbb5793c6822fec4b5a2eb586fe4cab78c3b0f0d4e"
";s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:16:29 GMT
";}