Comentários do leitor

Act Would En-ABLE Access To Tax Free Funds For Individuals With Disabilities

"Maximo Aponte" (2019-10-07)


Finally there’s a bill that is getting support from Republicans and Democrats alike. You might wonder what topic is important enough to generate this bi-partisan endorsement. It’s the ABLE Act - an acronym that stands for Achieving a Better Life Experience (for those with disabilities). The bill (known as H.R. National Disability Institute and other disability groups from the start. ABLE was reintroduced in November of 2011 by Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) and in 2012 by Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA) - and it has been gaining momentum since then. ABLE accounts would be legal and available in all states. Persons with disabilities would be allowed to set aside funds in a tax-free savings account. The money in this account can be withdrawn to cover costs of housing, health care, education, transportation, employment support, technology and miscellaneous expenses such as legal fees or burial costs. Account owners would still be eligible for Medicaid and Social Security benefits.

This is significant because it would enable parents of children with disabilities to set aside funds that can be used for beneficial participation in daily and community activities. Income earned on funds deposited to an ABLE account would be tax-exempt. 100,000 SSI will be suspended until the account dips below that amount. Medicaid benefits would not be affected. Anyone who is eligible for supplemental security income or disability income under the Social Security Act. The bill had 200 cosponsors in the House and 25 in the Senate after its initial introduction in 2009, but time expired. Since its reintroduction it has garnered support from 182 members of Congress. It is currently under consideration in two committees - the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means, where the respective committee chairs will determine if the bill should advance beyond committee. If you’d like more information on the ABLE Act or want to encourage your legislators to support and sponsor the Act, contact your Senators or Congressional Representative today. Every bit of support counts. By Maedi Tanham Carney, CFP and Benefit Counselor. Founder of M&L Special Needs Planning, LLC.

As any good prosecutor would claim, Zimmerman stalked a boy against protocol of his position which is to watch. The victim attempted to flee the stalker and finally stood his ground to be in the neighborhood and was killed doing so. The cases are not vastly different Jim, just different. The fact that he had a gun legally is not the issue, it is the stalking and killing. If Zimmerman had done what he should have been trained to do as a watcher he would have only alerted the police would would have approached Trayvon. I know people would cry about that also. As far as Daniel's incident goes, I am one hundred percent in agreement. So in your opinion then no one should ever carry a gun for protection, and the only people allowed to be safe are the biggest toughest guys around? People need to read a few facts about gun ownership and legal use whch this case shows no signs of.

These two cases are vastly different and this shooter should have been arrested the sencond no weapon or true signs of imminent life threatening situations could be found, and there were witnesses to this. The difference is huge etween the two. In this case the shooter did not even get hit, so where is the claim for his life being in imminent danger, thesecase are vastly different. You flatter me Cary. I thank you for your kind words. I don't know if I deserve you praise, but I am thankful for it. Rodric, the world needs more people like you. I pray your children turn out like you. For that we are all blessed. C Nichlas the culture and psychology behind the shoot are important to consider. Thank you for commenting. I think that all of that will be brought up in the case. It will in not way waive the fact that Zimmerman shot that boy whom he was stalking around. Daniel Adkins was walking his dog before the driver almost ran him down.

I just don't see the justification in shooting a man when you are sitting in a car and can drive off. My only comment to what you have written is the following. That WE, as men, are taught or learn early on to " not back down " in a fight situation. I'm not saying this is right. I am only stating a fact. And while it's true, on paper, that one could just walk away..that in itself is NOT always possible. I myself, once failed a martial arts exam by doing just that..I stood my ground. I should have avoided violence at all costs. Are these two incidents similar? I do not know as I was not there. I will say that Zimmerman did not need to be carrying a weapon. He did not need to shoot and kill his teenage assailant. But he feared his opponent, and the gun was there. But, he also could have called the authorities and waited. Mattie, I could not agree more! Thanks for reading and comment at this article.