The Power Of Zero Show

Last week David did part 1 of the review of David Walker's new book and talked about the reasons why the US will probably no longer be a world superpower by 2040. In this episode we're going to cover the proposed solutions. 40% of Americans don't pay any tax at all with 20% of Americans receiving a refundable tax credit. This has been used in lieu of raising the minimum wage. The federal government forgoes $1.4 trillion in taxes per year in allowable deductions. One solution would be to shore those deductions up. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves unless they are accompanied by a dramatic spending cut. We can't grow our way out of the problem with tax cuts. All exemptions, deductions, and exclusions would have to be eliminated. David Walker also proposes making income tax more inclusive and progressive so that everyone above the poverty level would pay taxes and more people would be invested in the system. It's not enough to tax the rich. He also discussed a wealth tax of 2%-3% per year. This comes with a number of details that would need to be hammered out and should be considered alongside eliminating the estate tax. Broadening the tax base is just the beginning. David Walker had a number of recommendations for spending and the federal budget. The first is if a member of congress doesn't submit their budget on time, they don't get paid. In all but 4 of the last 60 years, Congress has failed to pass their appropriation bills by the end of the fiscal year. This usually results in all these bills being combined into a massive omnibus bill with a number of other pieces of legislation being added in. If the federal government can't take their budget seriously and get it filed on time, how are they supposed to gain control of their spending? Whatever changes that will happen will happen under budget reconciliation which doesn't require a supermajority. The state of California was having similar problems with their appropriation bills and passed a provision like the one proposed. They have not had a problem since. The second big pillar is recapturing control over the federal budget. In 1912 the government had control over 97% of their spending, now 71% of the budget is non-discretionary. We are writing a blank check for 71% of the annual budget and have no control over it. That's primarily Social Security, MediCare, and Medicaid. The only program that David Walker was reluctant to cut was Social Security since it's one of the most popular federal programs. We can not put a cap on the interest on the national debt, given enough time the interest will overtake 100% of the federal budget. We need to change our approach to debt limits. Most industrialized nations have a cap on the debt in relationship to GDP which is something the US should adopt. The debt on its own is not a problem, it's the debt relative to GDP that's the problem. Given the scale of the debt, having a 90% cap is more realistic but will still be very difficult to meet. Any proposed tax cuts or spending increases would have to be offset so that our debt to GDP situation doesn't worsen. The time has come for a fiscal responsibility constitutional amendment to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio at a certain level. This is currently the way the states operate and could be applied federally. These recommendations could help and David Walker has been talking about the federal debt for a long time trying to raise awareness at the grassroots, which is where the will to change has to come from. The catastrophe of the first half of the book is going to come to pass. The reality of David Walker's vision becomes more real and inescapable with each year that passes.

David's new book did quite well during the launch week, quickly becoming the 3rd most sold business book in the world. David Walker is well known for his expertise regarding the fiscal condition of the United States and is perhaps the person who most understands the potential impacts. Based on David Walker's current projections for the US in the next 20 years things are not looking good. There is a real question about whether or not the US will still be a world superpower at that point. What does it mean to be a superpower? Being a superpower comes with four pillars: we are widely respected from an economic perspective, a diplomatic perspective, military power, and cultural influence. Currently, the US produces 50% of the global GDP but that number will be 18% by 2040 as China and India eclipse the United States' productive ability. Workers to retirees will be reduced to a 2:1 ratio by 2040, which speaks to the insolvency of our entitlement programs. David Walker predicts higher unemployment and economic disparity between the classes. Because capitalism has been under attack for so long the US will have become a welfare state and the private sector will become diminished in a creep toward socialism. The growth of the economy will have stalled out between 1% and 1.25%, which is not great for American prosperity. This is a big problem for keeping down unemployment and creating prosperity for America. The debt to GDP ratio will be 170% by 2040, notwithstanding huge tax increases, major reductions in tax spending, and constrained investments. This isn't reflecting the real debt to GDP ratio when you include unfunded liabilities. Due to higher debt levels and interest rates, there will be more protests against calls to raise taxes just to pay interest on the debt. If the US defaults on its debt it will precipitate a global depression. Even the Modern Monetary Theory enthusiasts will be concerned. David Walker is not a follower of MMT and believes that the US will experience hyperinflation, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1970s, followed by stagflation. The global consensus by 2040 will be that China is considered the most powerful country on Earth, as judged by the four pillars mentioned earlier. The threat of military conflict will increase but the US will be weaker from a conventional military capabilities perspective because most of the money will be going to pay interest on the debt. Our own fiscal responsibility will become our greatest weakness. Most countries in the world use the US dollar to transact but that will change as the dollar becomes unstable. The federal government of the US economy will comprise 28% of the economy, and when combined with state and local spending the number will balloon to 40%. This will lead to a misallocation of resources and less private investment. 50% of graduates from public education will lack basic language, math, and technology skills. Politicians will be calling for higher taxes and more wealth redistribution. This will result in poverty rates in seniors to skyrocket due to changes that will have to be made to Social Security and Medicare. Many wealthier individuals will leave the US, primarily leaving for Canada. For the first time in history, the quality of life of future generations of Americans may not be better than in the past. We don't face an immediate crisis, which is part of the problem. We are headed to a very bad place unless we can make some serious changes to shore up the fiscal conditions of our country.

The historical paradigm says to put your money into a 401(k) or IRA, get a tax deduction and let that money grow tax-deferred so that when you take that money out you're in a lower tax bracket. Experts and economists are starting to look at the fiscal condition of the US and the picture isn't good. The US is $23 trillion in debt with unfunded obligations of upwards of $239 trillion. We are marching into a future where the very solvency of the US government is being called into question. We are going to have multi-trillion dollar deficits over the next decade and the debt is only going up. What are the chances that taxes are going to be lower in the future given that reality? The paradigm has been flipped so the focus is now wringing every bit of efficiency out of your retirement accounts. Taxes are on sale right now. Experts have been saying for years that we need to raise revenue and lower spending, but the federal government has been doing the opposite. The 2017 tax cuts that were introduced have an expiration date in 2026, which means we only have six years to take advantage of these historically low tax rates. When you're retired, every day is Saturday. The average retiree shouldn't expect to spend less in retirement and studies have backed this finding up. To get to the zero percent tax bracket, the first step is accepting that taxes are going to be higher in the future than they are now. Many notable experts agree that tax rates will have to be dramatically higher than they are today, just to keep the country out of bankruptcy. The second step is to realize that there is an optimal amount of money to have in your three buckets in a rising tax rate environment. In your taxable bucket you should have no more than six months of expenses. In your tax-deferred bucket you want your balances to be low enough that required minimum distributions are offset by your standard deduction and don't cause social security taxation. Everything else should be systematically shifted to the tax-free bucket. If you don't have a pension or any other residual income in retirement, you probably shouldn't have more than $350,000 in your tax-deferred bucket. Everything else should be safely ensconced in your tax-free bucket by 2026. Most people don't recognize the fact that your social security can be taxed and many financial professionals don't even know what provisional income is. If you have too much provisional income, up to 85% of your social security can become taxable to you at your highest marginal tax bracket. When that happens you will run out of money five to seven years earlier than you would have otherwise. Plan for RMD's before they happen to you. Right now, the IRS is not requiring you to pay taxes on your money until age 72, but the question is "does that really make sense?" For most people it makes more sense to preemptively pay taxes on your terms, so that you're not paying taxes on the IRS's terms at age 72. Leaving a large amount of money in your IRA or 401(k) that you want to leave to your children is also a poor choice. They will be forced to pay taxes on that money over the course of ten years and it won't be unusual for people who inherit these accounts to pay upwards of 50%. Unfortunately the paradigm that most CPA's work in is to keep you as a client which means keeping you happy by saving you money this year instead of in the future. The Power of Zero paradigm is about changing this perspective. The best way to learn about the Power of Zero paradigm is by reading David's book or just listening to David Walker. If your advisor hasn't told you about this, it's for one of two reasons. Either he or she doesn't know about it, or he or she knows about it but they are not telling you about it. There isn't any one tool you can use to get to the zero percent tax bracket. It usually requires four to six streams of tax-free income. Generally, anything with the word Roth in front of it is a good idea. One thing that many people overlook is paying for long-term care. People aren't opposed to having long-term care insurance, they're just opposed to paying for it, which is why David recommends the LIRP as a great option. The general conclusion of the experts seems to be that tax rates will have to double by 2030. Governments are not currently doing anything about the debt and tend to wait until the last hour to act. The government likes to kick the can down the road. The problem with this approach is that the fix on the backend will be all the more draconian and severe than if they simply put a permanent fix in place today. There are a few people that doubt the prognostications of tax rates being higher in the future than they are today but we are starting to run out of critics. Since social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are tied to inflation it's impossible to print our way out of our problems. The more the debt grows, the less opposition there is to the Power of Zero paradigm. The math doesn't lie. Tax rates have to go up or we will go broke as a country, therefore we need to change our entire approach to retirement planning. The math will show you the path. David takes his clients through three different scenarios showing them what would happen if taxes stay the same and they do nothing, taxes double and they do nothing, and taxes doubling but they implement the Power of Zero paradigm. There is really no downside to the Power of Zero strategy because tax rates would have to go down in order for it to be the wrong choice. If you want to adopt the Power of Zero approach to retirement planning you need to find someone who has walked that path before.

The Securing a Strong Retirement Act is a bipartisan bill currently working its way through the house and has major implications for everyone in the country. We are finally getting some relief from RMD's. With life expectancy increasing they are looking at pushing out Required Minimum Distributions until the age of 75. This primarily benefits people of substantial means since the average person with money in their retirement accounts are withdrawing it above and beyond the minimum and well before age 75. Another interesting provision has to do with student loan debt. The new bill stipulates that people putting money towards paying down their student debt could have an equal amount of money put into their 401(k). It also says that if you have balances in your 401(k) or IRA you would be completely exempted from taking a Required Minimum Distribution. Seniors will also be able to count certain donations towards their RMD. Under the current law, there is a catch-up provision on the books. They are proposing that if you're over the age of 60 you will be able to catch up even more. If you believe tax rates are going to be dramatically higher in the future than they are today this is an opportunity to put additional funds into a Roth IRA. There are massive expansions of the buckets into which we can contribute after-tax dollars and allow them to grow tax-free. The average person changes industries seven times over the course of their lifetime and another provision would help people get reconnected with 401(k) accounts that were forgotten or left behind. The biggest takeaway from this new bill is that you will be able to make more contributions to Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRA's. The goal is not to get a deduction at historically low taxes, we want to pay the taxes at historically low levels so that when taxes are dramatically higher down the road we can take that money out tax-free. If you're just out of college, this bill will be an opportunity for you to get a jump start on your retirement savings while you're paying down your student loan debt at the same time.

At the time of recording this podcast the results haven't been certified but it looks like Joe Biden will be the next US president. There are a couple of different outcomes that you need to pay attention to. The first involves him not controlling the Senate. In order to win the Senate Democrats would have to win two seats in a runoff election on Jan 5 but pundits are saying that result is unlikely. If Republicans control the Senate there will be a lot of obstruction for Joe Biden's agenda. Everything that Joe Biden campaigned on is going to be effectively neutralized and he will probably have to postpone any changes until the midterms two years from now. This means you can expect two years of relative status quo, but if the Democrats do win those Senate seats in the midterm elections or want to press his program, he will likely try to make the most of the opportunity and push through his agenda more aggressively. If you make more than $400,000 per year, you are essentially a marked man or woman. For example, if you live in California you will have to pay a 13.3% State tax, a 39.6% Federal tax, an additional 14% additional Social Security tax for every dollar over the $400,000, and finally a 3.8% for an Obamacare surcharge. This scenario results in 1970s style tax rates where you would be paying 70.7% in taxes. You will also have fewer ways to mitigate that tax and be unable to deduct 401(k) contributions on the margin as well. Joe Biden has proposed considerable changes to the way 401(k) deductions are done so we are going to start to see deductions phasing out for people in the higher income levels. Joe Biden wants to be able to tax you at high marginal tax rates and doesn't want to give you a lot of recourse in terms of mitigating that tax. If you have significant income, your long term capital gains could become short term gains. If Joe Biden wins the Senate he will have two years to put this into law but in the process will likely upset a lot of people and potentially lose the Senate after the midterms, however this means that for the first two years you better duck and cover if you make $400,000 a year or more. If you make less than $400,000 a year, a Joe Biden presidency is relatively good news for you. Joe Biden plans on letting the tax cuts expire for the people that make $400,000 or more but for those who make less, he plans on making the tax cuts permanent. This could make contribution to your 401(k) a bit more complicated and for those above the $400,000 threshold they will probably want to consider some other options. In terms of the Power of Zero paradigm, it is largely good news if you believe that Joe Biden will make the tax cuts permanent for those who make less than $400,000 per year. We can't afford to keep tax rates this low and have actually gone beyond the point of no return. We would have to tax 103% for every dollar made over $400,000 just to prevent the deficit from growing. This doesn't include actually paying off the debt. Unless you believe in Modern Monetary Theory there doesn't seem to be any other way to solve our problems other than ultimately raising taxes on the middle class. Joe Biden is kicking the can down the road and it's going to compound our problems over time, but if you're looking to take advantage of this opportunity before we come face to face with reality, this is a great opportunity to shift money to the tax-free bucket. If Joe Biden wins over the Senate there's going to be a lot of shock and awe in the first two years of his administration as they push through a number of pieces of legislation that will disproportionately impact people who make more than $400,000 a year. If he doesn't win the Senate he will bide his time until the midterms to gain the seats he needs to implement this agenda.

Today's episode covers the last secret to mitigating the two most concerning risks of people planning to retire. People are afraid of running out of money before they run out of life. Traditionally the way you can mitigate that risk is by accumulating a lot of money and restricting your distributions to 3% which gives you a statistical likelihood of not running out of money. The alternative is by guaranteeing your income by way of an annuity. Economists say that the ideal way to guarantee an income stream for life involves giving an insurance company a large lump sum in exchange for a steady stream of income for life. There are a number of shortfalls with that approach including a lack of liquidity and what David refers to as the "Mack Truck Factor". Single premium immediate annuities do not adjust for inflation which means as inflation goes up your spending power goes down. Insurance companies have recognized a number of benefits of having an annuity as well as attempted to address the shortfalls. The solution they've come up with is a fixed indexed annuity. A fixed index annuity gives you liquidity on your dollars and the growth of the money in the account is linked to the upward movement of the market. They also come with death benefit features which do quite a bit to mitigate the issues with traditional annuities. The big mistake that most people make is they implement these annuities in the tax-deferred bucket, exposing themselves to the risk of a rising tax-rate environment. Insurance companies provide options to convert that fixed indexed annuity to a Roth IRA but that comes with its own set of problems. In an attempt to avoid doubling your taxes over time you may end up doubling them in the short term. There is another option known as a piecemeal internal Roth conversion that allows you to convert your annuity over whatever timeframe your financial plan calls for. The piecemeal internal Roth conversion eliminates the two greatest risks to your retirement, tax-rate risk, and longevity risk. When you remove those risks off the table, you also take care of the sequence of return, withdrawal rate risk, and inflation risk. Historically, financial advisors will say you can only mitigate one of those two risks. Either you have liquidity and don't have to worry about longevity or you cover longevity and have no liquidity. The plan outlined in Tax-Free Income for Life allows you to effectively remove longevity risk, along with all of the risks that get magnified as a result of longevity risk, and tax-rate risk all in the same financial plan. If you're looking for an advisor to help you navigate all the pitfalls that stand between you and the zero percent tax bracket, as well as mitigate both longevity risk and tax-rate risk you can go to davidmcknight.com to get connected with an Elite Advisor. The Power of Zero and Tax-Free Income for Life are companion volumes essential to your financial plan.

In the previous episode, David explained the surprising benefits of having a guaranteed income stream in retirement via an annuity, including living longer. If there are so many benefits of owning a guaranteed lifetime income annuity, why aren't more Americans taking advantage of these programs? There are three major barriers that are preventing people from ever entering into the transaction. The first issue that Americans have has to do with liquidity. In order to pull off the annuity deal, you have to give a large lump sum to an insurance company and you can't undo the transaction. There is a psychological benefit to being able to access your money at a moment's notice so the act of giving up liquidity is a major barrier for many people. The second problem is the lack of inflation hedge. The typical single premium immediate annuity does not index for inflation and people are afraid the income provided may not be enough to cover their expenses in the future. Some people approach the problem by increasing the lump sum at the beginning but that leads back to the first complaint of lack of liquidity. The third problem is the "Mack Truck Factor". If you go for a large annuity under the assumption that you will live for a long time but get flattened by a Mack truck a couple of years later, that asset will disappear from your balance sheet. However unlikely the proposition, the potential of making the worst investment ever and losing their kids' inheritance is a scary scenario for many people. Insurance companies are not blind to these three problems. They've created a fixed indexed annuity to try to address these issues and mitigate some of the risks involved. To address liquidity, they allow you to withdraw 10% of that annuity per year. This isn't full liquidity but basically functions the same way when you think about the 3% Rule. To address inflation, the annuity is placed into a growth account that is linked to the upward movement of a stock market index. You're not going to hit a homerun in this account but since the goal is to guarantee a stream of income until you die, this fits the bill. The last issue is addressed by a death benefit. If you die up to two years after purchasing an annuity, whatever you don't spend goes to the next generation including any growth on that money. As great as all that sounds, the last issue is that 99% of fixed indexed annuities get implemented in the tax deferred bucket. There are two major problems with that approach. When you have that annuity in your tax-deferred bucket, it can never be undone, which means you are exposing yourself to tax rate risk. If tax rates rise dramatically in the future you will have a hole in your income and will have to find a way to compensate. The second issue is that taking money out of your tax-deferred bucket, even if it's from an annuity, counts as provisional income and can lead to the risk of social security taxation. The combination of these two things, tax rate risk and social security taxation, could force you to spend down your stock market portfolio 12 to 15 years faster than you otherwise would have.

This is the first of three podcasts leading up to the release of David's latest book, Tax-Free Income For Life. According to a number of surveys, the number one risk that retirees are most concerned about is outliving their money. One of the ways to mitigate longevity risk is by having an annuity. There are a number of benefits that come with guaranteed lifetime income annuities, the first of which is retirement predictability. The first benefit of a guaranteed lifetime income annuity is closing the income gap between the amount required above and beyond what is provided for by your social security and government pension. An annuity has the ability to completely mitigate longevity risk. The second benefit is that people who have an annuity that can guarantee their income generally have considerably less anxiety and a higher level of happiness than those that don't. An annuity won't bring anxiety-free retirement but it will certainly be much less than those who have to rely on the stock market to achieve their retirement goals. The third benefit may surprise you. With a guaranteed lifetime income annuity, you will likely live longer. Studies show, after adjusting for all other variables, people with annuities tend to live longer than their counterparts who don't have them. The fourth benefit allows you to skirt around the 3% rule. While the 3% rule should generally work to ensure you never run out of money it tends to be a very expensive proposition. An annuity allows you to mitigate that risk with much less money. This can also free up more money to invest in the stock market. The final benefit is that because of the ability to guarantee your income with less money than you would require otherwise, you can take a greater risk in your stock market portfolio and be more aggressive. If the stock market goes down you are not going to be forced to take money out in a down year since you will have your living expenses guaranteed by your annuity. You will have the luxury of waiting for the stock market to recover in that scenario. Most of the money that you are planning on spending on your discretionary expenses in retirement has not been earned yet when you retire. You must have the ability to stretch your stock market portfolio over a possible 30 year time frame which requires you to take more risk in your investments. When you guarantee your lifetime income, you have a permission slip to take more risk in the stock market. A guaranteed lifetime income annuity also neutralizes two risks that have sent many retiree's portfolios into a death spiral. Namely sequence of return risk and withdrawal rate risk. This can prevent you from running out of money up to 12 to 15 years earlier than you expect. You don't have to worry about taking unduly high distributions from your stock market portfolio if your income is provided by a different means like a guaranteed lifetime income annuity.

Joe Biden is coming for your 401(k) and it's actually worse than David portrayed it in previous episodes of the podcast. Under Joe Biden's tax proposal he is going to equalize the tax benefits of retirement plans. David breaks down exactly what this means for people in different tax brackets and what the implications of this plan are. In order for Joe Biden's plan to be tax neutral the rate at which you receive a tax credit is 26%. This essentially means that anyone in a tax bracket under 26% is getting a great deal and anyone in a bracket above the 26% tax bracket is getting a terrible deal. Let's say you're in a 39.6% tax bracket and wanted to contribute $20,000 to your traditional 401(k). With the 26% benchmark you would receive a $5200 tax credit and have to pay $2720 in income tax on that contribution. But wait, there's more. At some point you are going to have to take those dollars out because they haven't taxed yet. Not only did you pay 13.6% to put the money in, if you're still in the 39.6% tax bracket when you take the money out you end up paying 53.2% and that still doesn't count the state tax implications. The math taking place on the tax return happens on a separate line which means the contribution carries down to the state level. Unless state legislatures act, your retirement plan contribution may be fully taxable at the state level when contributed. Since the retirement account is still pre-tax, which means the balance of your retirement account might be fully taxed at the state level upon distribution. The solution is fairly simple. If you find yourself above the 26% tax bracket, the solution is to simply stop contributing to your 401(k) and only contribute to your tax-free bucket. Pay your tax rate today if it's above 26% and avoid all the extra taxation. You are not going to be able to keep very much of your savings if you're above the 26% threshold and you contribute money to your 401(k). This proposal has the ability to radically redefine the retirement landscape. If Joe Biden wins the election, this proposal could become a reality. Mentioned in this Episode: The Biden Tax Plan: Proposed Changes And Year-End Planning Opportunities

Today's podcast is based on a recent article penned by Maya MacGuineas titled The Debt is Huge Because Trump Kept His Promises. Maya also appeared in David's documentary The Tax Train is Coming. Much of what Maya says is that we shouldn't be surprised by what happened during Trump's first term since it has been exactly what he campaigned on. The debt that has accumulated has been a result of President Trump's campaign promises of steep tax cuts and increased spending on both defense and veterans, and crucially, he promised to not make any changes to Social Security and MediCare. We are now paying the price for it. The numbers proposed were so huge that they seemed exaggerated and improbable, in other words, the amount of debt that Trump was looking to accumulate over the course of his first term was astronomical. The Nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that Trump's agenda would increase deficits over the next ten years by $4.6 trillion. The numbers at the end of Trump's first term are even worse due to the extra spending for the Covid-19 lockdown. In Trump's first three years he approved $3.9 trillion in borrowing just to pay for the tax cuts he introduced. Any good economist will agree that tax cuts are okay if they are paired with a commensurate decrease in spending, the problem is we didn't do that. While all the other economies in the world are paying down their debts, the US is piling debt upon debt. The deficit has never been so high when coupled with an economy that was going as well as it was prior to 2019. When you add up the additional borrowing that the US made to deal with Covid-19 the impact is immense, and the borrowing is just beginning. The $2 trillion borrowed initially was only the first half of the bridge. Had we been more fiscally responsible prior to Covid-19 we would not be in the same bind. We would be in a better position to handle something like Covid-19 had we not accumulated so much debt prior to it. There are a few things that Trump did not follow through on. The business tax cuts have not paid for themselves. Trickle-down economics is the idea that decreased taxes and increased capital going to corporations leads to an increase in the economy, but that would only happen with a concurrent decrease in spending, which did not happen in this situation. Discretionary spending is a relatively small portion of the budget, roughly 23% of the economy, and while Trump proposed reducing discretionary spending it actually increased by over $700 billion. Part of the problem is that Trump ran on not touching Social Security or Medicare and every year that goes by where we do not reform Social Security or Medicare in some way has an economic cost. Every year that goes by where we fail to address these two programs means the fix on the backend is going to become even larger and even more draconian. According to the CBO Social Security is projected to be insolvent by 2031 when the youngest of today's retirees turn 73. Ignoring these programs is not the same as protecting them. It dooms beneficiaries to large abrupt benefit cuts across the board or large tax increases on the population as a whole. The debt is headed towards a new record, in just a couple of years, it is projected to grow faster than the economy indefinitely. All major trust funds are heading towards insolvency because we have done nothing to fix them. All of the Covid-19 spending would have been more palatable as we come into the crisis with our fiscal house in order. Whoever is in the White House in January is going to have to put a long-term plan in place to reduce the debt once the economy is strong enough and save Social Security and Medicare. The scary part is that we are starting to hear more about Modern Monetary Theory and the idea that we can just print our way out of our issues without creating immense amounts of inflation. Take advantage of tax rates while they are historically low because they are not going to stay at these levels for long. Mentioned in this Episode: The debt is huge because Trump kept his promises - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/05/debt-is-huge-because-trump-kept-his-promises/