When Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, he dreamed of restoring the glory of the Russian empire. He has ended up restoring the terror of Josef Stalin. That is not only because he has unleashed the most violent act of unprovoked aggression in Europe since 1939, but also because, as a result, he is turning himself into a dictator at home.
Consider how the war was planned. Russia’s president thought Ukraine would rapidly collapse, so he did not prepare his people for the invasion or his soldiers for their mission. After two terrible weeks on the battlefield, he is still denying that he is waging what may become Europe’s biggest war since 1945. He has shut down almost the entire independent media, threatened journalists with up to 15 years in jail if they do not parrot official falsehoods, and had anti-war protesters arrested in their thousands.
And to gauge Mr Putin’s paranoia, imagine how the war ends. Russia has more firepower than Ukraine. It is still making progress, especially in the south. It may yet capture the capital, Kyiv. And yet, even if the war drags on for months, it is hard to see Mr Putin as the victor.
Suppose that Russia manages to impose a new government. Ukrainians are now united against the invader. Mr Putin’s puppet could not rule without an occupation, but Russia does not have the money or the troops to garrison even half of Ukraine. American army doctrine says that to face down an insurgency—in this case, one backed by NATO—occupiers need 20 to 25 soldiers per 1,000 people; Russia has a little over four.
The truth is sinking in that, by attacking Ukraine, Mr Putin has committed a catastrophic error. He has wrecked the reputation of Russia’s supposedly formidable armed forces, which have proved tactically inept against a smaller, worse-armed but motivated opponent. Russia has lost mountains of equipment and endured thousands of casualties, almost as many in two weeks as America has suffered in Iraq since it invaded in 2003.
And, as Stalin did, Mr Putin is destroying the bourgeoisie, the great motor of Russia’s modernisation. Instead of being sent to the gulag, they are fleeing to cities like Istanbul, in Turkey, and Yerevan, in Armenia. Those who choose to stay are being muzzled by restrictions on free speech and free association. They will be battered by high inflation and economic dislocation. In just two weeks, they have lost their country.

Medicaid is the single largest payer of nursing home bills in America. Although it's intended to be the last resort for people who have no other way to pay for long-term care services, more and more Americans with moderate incomes are relying on Medicaid, due to the rapidly rising cost of long-term care.
...
Partnership policies include incentives to encourage individuals to purchase long-term care insurance, instead of relying on Medicaid. Although any resident of a state in which Partnership policies are offered can purchase such a policy, state Partnership programs primarily target individuals with moderate income and assets. These are individuals who can afford reasonable long-term care insurance premiums but who can't afford to pay for long-term care out-of-pocket for more than a short period of time, and thus may eventually need to rely on Medicaid after their assets are exhausted. (Wealthier individuals often don't need to rely on Medicaid in the first place, and individuals with very limited means will likely qualify for Medicaid right away, and may have few assets to protect.)

According to a March 2020 report from Fidelity Investments, in the year after the “trough” of a bear market, the S&P 500 has gained an average of 47%. That is in comparison to the little over 8% per year on average that the S&P 500 has returned over the last 20 years*. To go back to my example of a $50k conversion, let’s assume you did that when the market was at the low on March 23rd of this year. The S&P 500 is up 44.54%* from March 23rd through yesterday, July 28th, so that $50k grew to just over $72k in about 4 months, $22k of tax-free growth.

A Roth conversion may not always be in a
taxpayer’s best long-term economic interests if:
• The current tax cost of the conversion is prohibitively high. A Roth conversion, in
its simplest sense, is a trade-off between paying taxes now vs. paying taxes later.
For the strategy to be impactful, the current tax cost of the conversion should not
be so expensive that it outweighs the benefit of any expected future tax-free
investment growth.
• The taxpayer is making regular and material withdrawals from their pre-tax IRA.
• The taxpayer does not have the cash to pay the tax due on conversion.
Tip:
We recommend converting shares of investment positions rather than selling investments in
the IRA and then converting cash proceeds. This ensures that the taxpayer continues to have
market exposure during the conversion process, and also saves on the transaction fees that
may be levied when selling an investment position.