It’s Super Bowl weekend, and the National Football League is about to reap its biggest payday of the year. Funny thing about that, though: The NFL won’t be paying any taxes on the profits it will be raking in from advertising revenue, ticket sales, or merchandise.

In fact, the last time the NFL paid taxes was in 1966. That was the year when lobbyists convinced Congress to change the definition of organizations categorized by the Internal Revenue Service as 501 (c)6 not-for-profit organizations. Previously, a sentence in Section 501(c)6 had granted not-for-profit status to “business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, or boards of trade.” Since 1966, the code has read: “business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues.”

In return for this incredibly lucrative, sweetheart deal, Congress asked for just one concession from the NFL: its promise not to schedule games on Friday nights or Saturdays in autumn, when many high schools and colleges play football.

The new provision gave the NFL a way to skirt taxes, while also granting it an uncommon anti-trust exemption, allowing it to create a monopoly to negotiate TV rights at the same time. Under the rule, leagues qualify for the tax-exempt status by stating that their purpose is to help promote their respective sports and membership instead of themselves. More specifically, 501(c)6 organizations — essentially industry trade groups, are defined as “associations of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit.” Hmm.

So, at the Internal Revenue Service, NFL stands for Non-profit Football League.

It’s a special status that the NFL continues to work hard to maintain. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the NFL has spent $2 million in campaign contributions since 1992, and $12.7 million on lobbying efforts since 1998. That’s a lot of money, but clearly, the NFL is getting a to-die-for return on its lobbying investments, because its fair share of taxes would be many millions more. According to Forbes Magazine, 2013 revenues for the National Football League [were] just north of $9 billion, which means the league remains the most lucrative in the world. NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell—whose annual salary is $30 million–is aiming even higher, hoping to reach $24 billion in annual revenues for the league by 2027.

And it’s all tax-free, subsidized by NFL fans and taxpayers. If the NFL were taxed as a normal corporation, it would be subject to the standard 35% corporate tax rate.

Just to clarify, the tax-exempt status applies only to the league—more specifically, its headquarters, which administers the league and its all-important television contracts. Individual teams are considered for-profit organizations, and presumably pay taxes—except for the tax credits, subsidies and giveaways they routinely get, most notably for billion-dollar stadiums, at the expense of the taxpaying public.

It should also be noted that, while the league claims that it shares much of its untaxed revenue with teams, it still manages to pay Goodell $30 million a year. According to CBS News, Steve Bornstein, the executive vice president of media, made $12.2 million in 2010. Former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue earned $8.5 million from the league in 2010. The league paid five other officials a total of $19.2 million in just one year. In comparison, the next highest salary of a traditional nonprofit CEO is $3.4 million.

How much do individual teams pay in taxes? That’s hard to know, because the teams—except for Green Bay—are privately held and don’t open their books to the public..

Bottom line, It’s scandalous to know that the NFL has the same tax status as a soup kitchen and other charitable groups that actually do some good for society. I recently received an email from Credo that put this issue in a wider political context:

As Republicans in Congress vote to cut food stamps and obstruct the extension of unemployment benefits, it’s time to highlight the hypocrisy of letting a multi-billion operation like the NFL get away with paying no taxes while they stick us with the bill. Though the NFL has successfully held back efforts to make it pay its fair share for nearly 50 years, Congress has the opportunity to change that by updating the Internal Revenue Code.

Credo is asking citizens to sign its petition urging Congress to change the IRS code regarding tax-exempt status for the NFL.

To that same end, in September 2013, Senator Tom Coburn [R-OK] introduced a bill that would ban pro sports leagues with more than $10 million in revenue from receiving tax-exempt status. He dubbed the bill the PRO Sports Act, with PRO as an acronym for Properly Reducing Over-Exemptions. Coburn also released a government “waste book” decrying the nonprofit status of the NFL, NHL and other professional sports organizations, estimated to cost taxpayers between $10 million and $91 million annually.  Coburn said:

Tax earmarks are essentially tax increases for everyone who doesn’t receive the benefit. In this case, working Americans are paying artificially high rates in order to subsidize special breaks for sports leagues.  This is hardly fair. This bill would require major professional sports leagues to be prohibited from qualifying as non-profit organizations under the tax code. This would help give all Americans, not just athletes and owners, a break and pave the way for the kind of tax reform and job creation our economy desperately needs.

Coburn should get some credit for the effort, although he couches it in typically Republican language, decrying earmarks and touting “job creation.” Not surprisingly, Coburn’s bill gained only one co-sponsor—Angus King, (I-ME)—and Govtrack rates its chance of passage by the Senate Finance Committee as 0%.

Andy Kroll, a reporter at Mother Jones, puts the issue this way:

So as you settle onto the couch next Sunday for a full day of gridiron action, don’t be fooled by the NFL’s manly, to-the-victor-go-the-spoils ethos. The league is one of the biggest welfare queens around.

The post The National Football League is a non-profit organization. Huh? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Anti-tax politicians keep repeating that, when taxes go up, rich people go elsewhere. They claim that when states raise taxes, millionaires leave in droves, fleeing to lower-tax havens. Not true, say several recent studies.

It’s an article of faith among low-tax advocates that income tax increases aimed at the rich simply drive them away, says a New York Times article, entitled  “The Myth of the Rich Who Flee Taxes:”

As Stuart Varney put it on Fox News: “Look at what happened in Britain. They raised the top tax rate to 50 percent, and two-thirds of the millionaires disappeared in the next tax year. Same things are happening in France. People are leaving where the top tax rate is 75 percent. Same thing happened in Maryland a few years ago. New millionaire’s tax, the millionaires disappeared. You’ve got exactly the same thing in California.”

That, at least, is what low-tax advocates want us to think, and on its face, it seems to make sense. But it’s not the case. It turns out that a large majority of people move for far more compelling reasons, like jobs, the cost of housing, family ties or a warmer climate.

Defenders of the millionaire-flight theory do, indeed, have some high-profile examples to cite: Tiger Woods, LeBron James, and even French actor Gerard Depardieu, who recently applied for tax-haven citizenship in Russia.  They’re hardly typical, and they represent a minuscule fraction of people who earn $1 million or more in a single year.

Closer to home, millionaire-flight theorists like to use Maryland as an example. They point to statistics that indicate that, a year after the state enacted “millionaire’s tax,” 2,324 Maryland taxpayers who had reported net taxable income of  $1 million or more in 2008 no longer did so in 2009. Anti-taxers call that an “outflow” of millionaires.

But, according to a 2011 study by the Washington D.C-based Instituted on Taxation and Economic  Policy,  the anti-taxers have it wrong. According to their study, only 360 of those who didn’t report a million dollars in taxable income in 2009 either filed only as a part year resident or did not file a return at all (because they moved out of state, died, or simply failed to file). The other approximately 2,000 still filed in Maryland, but reported incomes below $1 million. So:

While it is true that the number of tax returns filed in Maryland with net taxable income of $1 million or more declined noticeably in both 2008 and 2009, that decline has far more to do with the national recession–and its impact on household incomes–than it does with changes in tax policy.

In other words, the millionaires didn’t flee Maryland: They just weren’t millionaires any more.

A similar study in California yielded parallel results. According to Cristobal Young, a professor at Stanford University, who conducted the study:

Migration is a very small component of changes in the number of millionaires in California. While the millionaire population sees a typical year-to-year fluctuation of more than 10,000 people, net migration sees a typical year-to-year fluctuation of 50 t0 120 people. At the most, migration accounts for 1.2 percent of the annual changes in the millionaire population. The remaining 98.8 percent of changes in the millionaire population is due to income dynamics at the top–California residents growing into the millionaire bracket, or falling out of it again.

Also helping to debunk the millionaire tax-flight myth is a report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Among its major findings, the study lists these:

• Migration is not common. Most people have strong ties to their current state, such as job, home, family, friends, and community. On average, just 1.7 percent of U.S. residents moved from one state to another per year between 2001 and 2010, and only about 30 percent of those born in the United States change their state of residence over the course of their entire lifetime. And when people do relocate, a large body of scholarly evidence shows that they do so primarily for new jobs, cheaper housing, or a better climate. A person’s age, education, marital status, and a host of other factors also affect decisions about moving.
• The migration that’s occurring is much more likely to be driven by cheaper housing than by lower taxes. A family might be able to cut its taxes by a few percentage points by moving from one state to another, but housing costs are far more variable. The difference between housing costs in two different states is often many times greater than the difference in taxes. So what might look like migration in search of lower taxes is really often migration for cheaper housing.

• Recent research shows income tax increases cause little or no interstate migration. Perhaps the most carefully designed study to date on this issue concerned the potential migration impact of New Jersey’s 2004 tax increase on filers with incomes exceeding $500,000. It found that while the net out-migration rate of this income group accelerated after the tax increase went into effect, so did the net out-migration rate of filers with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, and by virtually the same amount. At most, the authors estimated, 70 tax filers earning more than $500,000 might have left New Jersey between 2004 and 2007 because of the tax increase, costing the state an estimated $16.4 million in tax revenue. The revenue gain from the tax increase over those years was an estimated $3.77 billion, meaning that out-migration — if there was any at all — reduced the estimated revenue gain from the tax increase by a mere 0.4 percent.

The post The myth of millionaire tax flight: Debunked appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I am part of America’s middle class and I want to pay higher taxes.

Before you call me insane, let me explain that I want to pay higher taxes in the same way that I “want” to work-out, eat less chocolate, and watch less television. I know that regardless of how much I complain while I’m exercising, I know that at the end of the day I will be satisfied that I invested in a healthy future.  This is the ever-important concept of delayed gratification and unfortunately previous generations did not apply this concept to the federal budget.

I’m assuming that everyone knows by now that President Obama has not balanced the federal budget for the last four years. I’m also assuming that the majority of the population knows that our deficit is dangerously high (eg. $16 trillion).  But did you know that our federal budget has only been balanced four out of the last 35 years?  Well, you already knew that if you watched former President Clinton ‘s speech at the Democratic National Convention (I’ll let you guess which administration balanced the budget). Given America’s sordid history of reckless accounting, it should be no surprise that this generation is finally going to have to pay for it.   Please stop saying that we must solve the debt crisis for the future generation and start doing it for your self.

I’m aware that one cannot just simply take the high road and elect to pay higher taxes, but I know that I have the guts to vote for a lower paycheck so that my country does not fail.  There is no realistic way the government can lower taxes or keep them at their current level without slashing federal spending.  We can’t just de-fund PBS, NPR, and Planned Parenthood and call it a day (Federal contributions to those three programs combined make up around 1% of the federal budget).   We would need to eliminate historic programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, which help keep millions Americans afloat. As I mentioned earlier, I am not wealthy. A cut in my paycheck would mean I have to make hard budgeting decisions.  But I am ready and willing to face those circumstances for the betterment of the nation’s status quo. I do not ask what my country can give me; I ask what I can give to my country.

As a college graduate, I am willing to pay more taxes so that the future generation has the same opportunity, regardless of their financial status.  As a daughter, I will make sacrifices to make sure that my parents’ generation has Medicare and Social Security.  As a woman, I want to make sure low-income women are not burdened by the high cost of female-specific health expenses, from contraception to mammograms.  As an American, I want to make sure that the men and women who serve my country come home to the same healthcare privileges that I enjoy.  And as a human-being, I know that we should stop forcing the world’s densely populated and poverty-stricken subtropical regions from reaping the consequences of America’s selfish ignorance to climate change.

We are all aware of the consequences of greed and self-interest yet we refuse to yield any of our income to those who are hurting the most.  Yes, Governor Romney and President Obama, you are correct.  The middle class is hurting.  We are still burdened by Wall Street’s failures.  But we, too, will have to pay for the mistakes of the wealthy if we truly want to see this nation recover.  We must not have a one-sided approach to reducing the deficit.    I understand that the middle class is economically diverse, with incomes ranging from  $32,500 to $250,000 and I apologize for lumping this huge economic class under one umbrella.  There are certainly members of the middle class who cannot and should not pay higher taxes. And, I also understand that members of the middle class can afford higher taxes but don’t trust the government with their hard-earned cash.  But the fact of the matter is that we must raise revenue on those who can afford it while making government programs more efficient and less costly or else we will either lose major government programs, worsen the current economy or both.

We must cross the partisan barbed wire fence and do what is necessary for the nation.  After all, the U.S. credit rating was not downgraded because of the financial crisis; it was downgraded because our politicians failed to unify days before the federal government reached a fiscal cliff. We have spent the past three decades putting ourselves before the benefit of the nation. Raising taxes should not be political suicide.  If you ask me, it’s simply patriotic.

The post Please raise my taxes appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s become sport to knock the leading GOP candidate de jour off his or her pedestal. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry were easy targets. Herman Cain has maintained a position at or near the top for nearly a month. While some mock him as just a glorified pizza man or another bogus “motivational speaker” from the right, he has succeeded in doing what no candidate from either party has done in recent memory. He has Republicans and Democrats alike talking about real issues – ones which often challenge our embedded thoughts and generate fresh thinking.

You may not like the 9-9-9 plan, but chances are that you have a pretty good idea of what it is. That means that you’re thinking about personal income taxes, corporate taxes, and sales taxes. If you watched the debate from Las Vegas, you heard a great deal about the value-added tax and how it Cain’s opinion, that’s not part of 9-9-9.

Television journalists, who frequently run away from discussion of substance, have taken a certain fascination in Cain’s ideas and are peppering the other candidates to offer their thoughts on 9-9-9. The result is some light being shed on our tax code and a glimpse at fresh ideas to reform it. Americans are trying to gather information on subjects about which they had not previously thought. What is a valued-added tax? First, it’s somewhat complicated. Second, it’s fairly common in Europe. These are two factors that many Americans, particularly Republicans, don’t want to go near. They prefer ideas to be distilled to the most simplistic form and for them to be perceived as home-grown with no connection to those socialist, wine-sipping, hedonistic Europeans. Despite that, many want to know what the value-added tax is. According to Investopedia, it’s:

What Does Value-Added Tax – VAT Mean?

A type of consumption tax that is placed on a product whenever value is added at a stage of production and at final sale. Value-added tax (VAT) is most often used in the European Union. The amount of value-added tax that the user pays is the cost of the product, less any of the costs of materials used in the product that have already been taxed.

Investopedia explains Value-Added Tax – VAT

For example when a television is built by a company in Europe the manufacturer is charged a value-added tax on all of the supplies they purchase for producing the television. Once the television reaches the shelf, the consumer who purchases it must pay the value-added tax that applies to him or her.

This is not easy to understand, but Herman Cain has us trying to do so.

Compare the dialogue that Cain has promoted with two recent focuses of the two major parties:

1. For the past several decades, the Republican Party has portrayed itself as the party of “family values.” Candidates measure their bona fides by how conservative they really are on these “social issues.” Are they truly anti-choice? Do they really oppose stem-cell research? Are they fully committed to saving the life of a 93-year old in a coma while opposing Head Start? If so, they are Republicans in good standing. They are also certified members of the club of politicians who dumb down our political dialogue.

2. Democrats danced around the particulars of health care reform during their 2008 debates. The vagueness of their ideas (in stark contrast to how Cain presents 9-9-9) left the public with a cloudy idea of what reforms the candidates actually wanted. It’s not surprising that the lack of clarity of their ideas was a precursor to the Affordable Health Care Act (euphemistically called “Obamacare” by detractors) that passed in March, 2010. It’s basically what the “Big Three Candidates” (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards) wanted; to help people by expanding coverage but to also take good care of their donors associated with health insurance companies.

There was an excellent opportunity to clarify the debate, but the press punted on the opportunity. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich stood alone in support of a single-payer health care program (which we must now call by the sanitized but accurate name of “Medicare-for-all”). The six-page bill that he and over 70 others sponsored (H.R. 676) called for universal coverage for all Americans provided by and administered by the federal government and funded by either an increase in the payroll tax or in the personal income tax. It would save most individuals out-of-pocket expenses because while their taxes would go up, they would be freed from the shackles of health insurance premiums, often $9,000 / year or more).

Debate after debate Kucinich clearly and effectively explained the plan. I was curious to hear what Obama, Clinton, and Edwards would say about it. I never found out because through the entire series of debates, not a single “journalist” asked any other candidate to respond to this proposal sponsored by Kucinich and most of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Instead of that, ABC’s esteemed George Stephanopoulos had time to ask Barack Obama what may be the most bizarre question in the history of televised debates, “Do you think that Reverend Wright loves this country as much as you?”

Herman Cain has been peppered with questions asking him to drill down into the specifics of the 9-9-9 plan. So far no journalist has come close to matching Stephanopoulos with a question to Cain that is so absurd, irrelevant, insulting, and non-enlightening.

Cain has economists crunching new numbers to see if the 9-9-9 plan is what he says it is: (a) revenue neutral, (b) fair to everyone including the poor, and (c) easy to administer. Other Americans with intellectual curiosity are sitting down at the kitchen table and analyzing how the 9-9-9 plan would play out for their family finances in relation to the current tax code.

It’s likely that Herman Cain will not get the Republican nomination and that he may become just a footnote to history. Even if his ideas do not survive the test of intense scrutiny, he should be praised for elevating the dialogue. I would love to see him get the Republican nomination so that he and Barack Obama could have a serious discussion about taxation as well as the role of government. Like his Republican colleagues, Cain demonizing ignores the fact that taxes are necessary because government services are necessary. Republicans discount the words of wisdom from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

Should Cain debate Obama, the president would be the advocate of plans to enhance the economic well-being and quality of life for America’s low-income and middle-income individuals and families. He would be free to draw contrasts including support for a more progressive tax system, increased government spending to jump-start the economy, and further reforming health care so as to reduce costs and diminish the power of insurance companies.

It would really be up to the press to determine if such a dialogue would take place. I’m not betting on the press. However, I do feel that a Cain-Obama race might be the substance-oriented debate for which many Americans crave. It’s not likely, but stranger things have occurred. A fallback option is Cain for VP resulting in an interesting an enlightening debate with Joe Biden. In the words of that American non-intellectual, George W. Bush, “bring it on.”

The post Herman Cain has done what Dems couldn’t in 2008 appeared first on Occasional Planet.

At the most recent Republican presidential debate [Oct. 18, 2011], Herman Cain parried all questions about his 9-9-9 tax plan by saying that his critics were comparing apples to oranges. Well, maybe. At least they were talking about a real policy issue—taxation. But from what I heard, I’d say they were comparing baloney to bullcrap. Why? Because the obvious premise underlying these so-called debates is simple: taxes are bad.

The notion that taxes are a negative aspect of our democracy has become conservative dogma that, unfortunately, goes essentially unchallenged during the infomercial/game shows—predominantly sponsored by conservative groups, not by independent news-gathering organizations—that are being passed off as “debates” by Fox, CNN and even PBS. I have yet to hear a single host/journalist/newsreader ask a candidate to explain how, under the slash-and-burn ideology of tax cutting, we’re supposed to do what our government is charged with doing. [And yes, I do understand that virtually all of the Republican candidates want to cut taxes as a way of starving government until it’s so small that it can’t get in the way of their god—the free market.]  Just once, I’d like someone to ask the Republican candidates to name a tax that they would not reduce, or, better yet, to define their view of the proper role of taxation for our country.

In Republican circles, every discussion of taxes focuses on participles like reducing, cutting, eliminating and flattening, and nouns like burden and relief. This framing isn’t new, as anyone who’s read anything by linguist George Lakoff  knows. The overwhelming and unchallenged anti-tax message pushes the assumption that there is no tax that is good, and that there’s no tax that’s too small to cut. That notion flies in the face of the reality of everyday life in this country, where we all rely on—and expect—tax-supported services in hundreds of ways—both large and small.

Unfortunately, the conservative message has become so predominant that, often, interviewers, pundits, and progressive politicians and individuals forget that it’s based on a false assumption, and that we need to stand up, challenge the premise, and counter it [even when facts don’t count].

To her great credit, Elizabeth Warren did just that recently, when she made her now famous statement about corporate wealth and fairness:

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

It’s also worth reminding ourselves and others of some of the specific ways that we all rely on taxes . The following list has been in my files for almost 10 years, which shows how long the conservative anti-tax meme has been infiltrating our consciousness. I’m sure many readers have a similar list, so I’m not pretending that I’m breaking any news here. Some of these examples seem obvious, but I think they bear repeating—often and loudly. Here are some highlights, in no particular order. Memo to Anderson Cooper and “debate” hosts: How about trying some of these out on the next show?

If you don’t like taxes…

– Don’t drive on paved streets or highways.

– Don’t call 911.

– Don’t flush your toilet.

– Don’t bring your garbage to the curb.

– Don’t fly in an airplane that uses air-traffic controllers.

– Don’t use the court system.

– Don’t call the police when you get robbed.

– Don’t ask for a farm subsidy for not growing crops.

– Don’t ask for a taxpayer subsidy to do business in a city or state.

– Don’t buy a sports franchise and ask the taxpayers to build your stadium.

– Don’t send your children to public schools.

– Don’t attend a state university.

– Don’t expect a social security payment.

– Don’t let Medicare pay your bills if you are over 65 or disabled.

– Don’t look for a government contract to bolster your defense industry business.

– Don’t look for a government.

– Don’t look for a lucrative government consultant contract.

– Don’t run for political office where your salary is paid for by the taxpayers.

– Don’t accept government research findings that subsidize research for your industry.

– Don’t be an airline and expect the government to bail you out.

– Don’t be a car company and expect the government to bail you out.

– Don’t be a steel company and expect the government to bail you out.

– Don’t be a company that pollutes and expect the taxpayer to bail you out.

– Don’t climb to the top of the Washington Monument, which is maintained at taxpayer expense.

– Don’t be rescued by fire department paramedic team.

– Don’t expect federal assistance if a natural disaster destroys your home or business.

– Don’t expect the military to defend your country.

– Don’t visit national parks or hike in national forests.

– Don’t eat USDA inspected meat, cheese, eggs or produce.

– Don’t take any medications tested and approved by the FDA.

– Don’t drink, bathe or otherwise use the water from municipal water systems.

– Don’t look at or relay a weather report.

– Don’t look at a NASA generated picture.

– Don’t expect a unit of measure like a gallon of gas to be a full gallon.

– Don’t expect an elevator to work correctly or not fall.

– Don’t expect a red light to work.

– Don’t accept government money to help develop a product which you then personally patent or copyright and sell for your own profit.

– Don’t use the services of a doctor who is licensed through the state.

– Don’t expect research into medical problems such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, aging, prostrate, menopause, etc.

– Don’t use the public library.

– Don’t go to a state university affiliated hospital.

– Don’t apply for government grants.

– Don’t ask for a business loan from the small business administration.

– Don’t ask to use the G.I. bill to go to college.

– Don’t drive a car that benefits from government safety regulations.

– Don’t use currency printed by the US Treasury.

– Don’t use a bank or credit union that insures your deposits through the FDIC.

– Don’t get married, have children or die and expect the government to keep track of all the certificates.

– Don’t visit public museums.

– Don’t go hunting, fishing, or camping on government property.

– Don’t cross a bridge.

– Don’t use truckstops or public restrooms.

– Don’t expect the government to protect the copyright for the works you create.

– Don’t expect your tap water to be clean and germ free.

– Don’t eat any food transported on roads.

– Don’t expect any workplace safety standards, labor laws, or minimum wage.

– Don’t expect zoning laws.

– Don’t expect anyone to plow your roads when it snows or sweep them when they’re dirty.

– Don’t expect your children to be able to ride the bus to school.

– Don’t write any material to be published and copyright it.

– Don’t expect the court to appoint a taxpayer-paid attorney to represent you (or your child) when you are accused of a crime.

– Don’t call or go to the US Embassy in a foreign country when you get in trouble.

– Don’t get a passport or try to get out of the US without a Passport.

pp

The post Republican tax “debate” is baloney appeared first on Occasional Planet.