Department of Labor Fiduciary Rule

The Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Employee Benefit Security Administration

U.S. Department of Labor (Room N-5655)

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

March 13th, 2017

Dear Sir,

I am writing to voice my support of scrapping the proposed “fiduciary rule” and that you consider a new rule to prohibit the use of annuities to actively fund 401k, 403b, SIMLE IRA, SEPS, deferred compensation, IRA, Roth IRAs, etc…

For nearly 24 years I’ve been helping middle class consumers invest for retirement and I can honestly say I’ve never once opened a contributory retirement account using an annuity. In my opinion the use of annuities for contributory retirement accounts is currently the biggest scam in our industry.  Matter of fact, it’s nearly impossible to imagine any ethical person doing this, yet it’s done every day. Huge tax sheltered 401k, 403b plans, etc… are being funded with annuities which are also tax sheltered.

It's unbelievable that insurance companies continue to get away with this.  How did your predecessors rationalize prohibiting commission mutual funds for retirement accounts while giving the green light to annuities?  The commissions on mutual funds are pretty much the same now, their costs are disclosed on the statements and break points significantly reduce what the consumer pays while annuities hide what they charge and without breakpoints overcharge the consumer by billions not including the huge costs associated with the unneeded double tax shelter.

All things being equal, it’s clear that low cost, no-load mutual funds, index funds and ETFs outperform commission mutual funds day in and day out, but things are NOT equal and study after study by companies like DALBAR and my years of observation indicate that the average investor doesn’t see these returns due to bad timing of the market, not getting an early start or just making basic mistakes.

Like most attempts to regulate morality the “fiduciary rule” will certainly fail.  Good advisers don’t screw their clients because of rules and regulations prevent them. They do what’s right because they are honest. Nothing will prevent unscrupulous insurance agents and advisers from finding loop holes to make higher profits at the expense of the uneducated consumer.

Instead of prohibiting commissioned mutual funds it would be in the best interests of consumers if the DOL stepped up and prohibited the abusive practice of selling annuities to fund contributory retirement accounts.

Sincerely,

David Beemer
Bath, Maine

PS Email sent to the DOL during the rules mandatory proposed rule response time.

*** Update ***

Entire rule vacated by the Federal Court 5th Circuit of Appeals - Vacated normally means it's dead but my thinking is Broker Dealers have spent too much time and resources into the proposed rules to change course which is insane. I ponder the thought of who at the DOL thought they had the authority to superseded laws pass by congress and regulate the securities industry? So it's dead right? Hell no! Government regulations don't die they just come back to life as something else... very much like Zombies.

Maybe CO2 is causing the Earth to Warm but NOT directly?

CO2 is warming the planet but maybe just NOT the way we have been told.  Everyone knows (97% of scientists) global warming is the result of the 1 in 10,000 atmospheric increase in CO2 which is basically nothing compared to the atmosphere on whole.  Most scientists would agree this increase in CO2 is just a tiny player in total green house gases especially when compared to water vapor.

NASA and even the recent IPCC report says water vapor is by far the biggest player in keeping the planet warm which lines up with common sense. Deserts being scorching hot during the day and wicked cold at night has a lot to do with the amount of water vapor in the air and don't get me started regarding clouds. As far as over all temperature nothing drives this more than humidity and humidity is directly linked to vegetation. So the real question is... if water vapor makes up 95% of all green house gasses why is it barely mentioned as a green house gas?

Because unlike carbon it's hard to vilify water!

Waging a ware against water vapor doesn't clean up the environment!

So basically I'm saying the man made increase in CO2, compared to the atmosphere on whole, is NOT directly responsible for global warming that we have seen for about the last 150 years. Keep in mind, contrary to what Al Gore would have you to believe, the 400,000 year ice core data (now 800,000 years) shows the increase in CO2 thought to have caused the temperature increase actually lags said increase by an average of 800 years!

So what's going on?

I contend such a small overall increase in atmospheric CO2 is not capable of "measurable" change in our climate. Even as a powerful green house gas, man's total contribution to the green house effect about one quarter of one percent.

So what's going on?

The 100 ppm increase in CO2 since 1900 is nothing as far as green house gasses go but it's a 33% increase in a gas that plants are starving for!

This recent increase in CO2 has resulted in a note worthy increase in plant food and resulting growth world wide. This greening of the planet is noticeable from space and NASA has successfully documented this world wide.

All of this is quantifiable and there is no doubt that a roughly 20-30% increase in world wide plant productivity is having an measurable impact on water vapor, weather weather patterns and eventually climate

How ironic would it be if it turns out that environmentalists saving the rain forest, not burning coal is causing the melting of glaciers, shifting weather patterns and eventually the drowning of our low lying coastal populations.

PS This idea hit me as I was dreaming about Mars and a recent study that showed it's likely possible to grow potatoes there.

NASA Confirms Water Vapor Major Player in Climate Change?

Really, NASA confirms? What's shocking is thinking water vapor's role needed confirmation!

What is the fuss all about?  Mathematically man's contribution to global green house gases adds up to roughly a quarter of 1% of the total green house effect or radiative forcing.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), CFC's, etc... are the only gases we talk about when discussing green house gases. Crazy when it's widely known that water vapor is the seven ton elephant in the room representing roughly 95% of all green house gasses.

Why is water "vapour" only mentioned in passing in the last IPCC report?  Maybe because it would be implausible to suggest water "vapour" is bad?  If you search all 222 pages of Climate Change 2013 - The Physical Science Basis - Summery for Policy Makers "water vapour" is mentioned 85 times, of which 83 of those it's not being talked about as a green house gas.

"As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate." (page 153)  Largest contributor? The IPCC says it's the largest contributor but it's only mentioned twice as a green house gas?

CO2 on the other hand is mentioned 452 times not once mentioning increased CO2 is making our planet greener. Why is something mentioned 452 times when the total increase since 1900 is 1 part in 10,000?

To put this in perspective we would need a 275% increase in today's levels of CO2 just to reach the levels commercial greenhouses artificially create (by burning propane and natural gas) to increase plant growth in some cases by as much as 50%. That's right commercial green houses buy bulk CO2 or burn natural gas to boost daytime CO2 levels. In some areas it's gotten so bad that breweries can't get the CO2 they need because pot growers have used up the local supply.

"97% of all scientists" -  I've researched this percentage and blogged about where this quote comes from and regardless of what some think just saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Hell based on the main assumption I too would be included in the 97%. However, as of today I'm more convinced than ever that the 33% increase in CO2 (300 to 400 ppm) isn't as bad as we have been lead to believe. Yes man is contributing to warming but we are not by any measure the primary driver but unlike those on the far left and right I'll keep an open mind and hope that science continues to search for the truth.

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

“Global warming” is not a global crisis

Global Warming aka Climate Change Extremes

I almost forgot to apply one of my favorite understanding techniques to Global Warming aka Climate Change... Extremes:

What if we could some how stop putting CO2 into the air and removed every bit we have added in the last 116 years would temperatures and sea levels return to what they were in 1800?

Conversely, what would happen if some how we could return to the atmosphere all the the CO2 that was sequestered in coal and oil? Would the predictions of a world meltdown be correct?

Before the Carboniferous Period (about 359 to 299 million years ago) this CO2 was in the atmosphere and the fossil record shows the planet wasn't a run away green house like that of Venus but humid, lush and green. There were even periods of glaciation during this time and vast polar ice caps. How is that possible?

As I've stated in past posts, I'm a global warming aka climate change agnostic who is passionate about clean air, water and land and I'm very concerned that many scientists, politicians, environmentalists and the media are focused on the 1 in 10,000 atmospheric CO2 increase and not pollution that adversely impacts millions of lives.

Furthermore, the alarmist clearly don't understand that if we burned all the worlds coal the atmosphere would return to what it was 359 million years ago which was obviously very livable and if the fossil record is to be believed very lush, green and productive.

It's interesting to note that during the last half of the Carboniferous Period significant ice cap formations covered the poles even though atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) were approximately 1500 ppm.

IPCC - Sea Levels Rise 8 to 20 inches by 2100

The 2007 IPCC report concluded that average ocean levels will rise between 8 and 20 inches by year 2100. That seems to make sense considering it has risen about 8 inches since 1900.

Every now and then I see something that makes me scratch my head and wonder what all the fuss is about? Yes, if this prediction is correct it's going to be a problem for millions who live in areas that... I'm sorry to say they shouldn't. There is a reason why the Dutch have dikes and New Orleans requires an extensive levy system. Living in coastal areas is awesome but I'm sorry building on sand and on river deltas is just stupid. That said, I think humanity is more than capable of dealing with the projected sea level rise over the next 85+ years.

It's important to note that 10,000 years ago enough water was locked up in land glaciers to lower the world oceans by over a 150 meters. Have you ever wondered why the Chesapeake Bay and much of our East Coast look the way it does? The Chesapeake is essentially the drowned Susquehanna River valley.

Again I urge my fellow tree hugging friends to focus on air, water and land pollution that continues to adversely impact millions of lives on a daily bases and in my opinion poses a much greater risk to our planet than plant loving CO2.

Should the Federal Government Support the Local Press?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... I would argue that our founders knew that a free press was essential to monitoring local government.

It's a TOTALLY off the wall suggestion but clearly the local press is dead and maybe it's time we as a nation determine it's in our best interest to support it?

In depth local reporting is basically gone and the internet isn't stepping up to fill this void. I could list a dozen things that have happened that twenty years ago wouldn't have happened if the local press still existed. For example the water problem in Flint Michigan.

One thing we could do to make America great is find a funding mechanism to help support local papers. Seems nuts but it might actually be cost effective. Could local papers be independent if they received federal funds? In the long run would it be cost effective? We spend millions and millions of dollars helping spread democracy in the third and second world, wouldn't it make sense to redirect some of those funds to make America Great?

The Dark Side of Politics - NRST

I've been involved with the GOP since walking my neighborhood as a kid putting flyers in doors for the League of Woman voters. My activism (for my mom) helped me get appointed to the Naval Academy and fueled my lifelong interest in politics.

My passion for politics was reignited in 1992 when I first heard about "CATS". No, not the fuzzy little creatures who occupy so many homes and for the most part are the most aloof animals in existence. CATS or Citizens for the Alternative Tax System, was the acronym for a nation wide tax reform movement that called for the repeal of the 16th amendment. The 16th amendment which was part of the progressive movement like the 17th (direct election of Senators) and the 18th (prohibition) was ratified February 1913 allowing direct taxation of the individual by the federal government.

Think about it... Up until 1913 the income tax was unconstitutional. It's hard to imagine a time where the federal government couldn't tax the individual. One could say that the inability to tax the individual was one of the founding principles that the drafters specifically prohibited it in our Constitution.

The federal sales tax is so simple to understand. It calls for the elimination of the income tax. Federal revenue is raised by piggy backing a federal sales tax on the existing state sales tax. To ensure it's wasn't regressive (meaning detrimental to lower income earners) anyone could apply for a rebate to compensate them on incomes below the poverty line. 

The federal government acknowledges the sales tax is the simplest tax to collect as documented by the existence of more than one government white paper on how to collect taxes post massive natural disaster or limited nuclear war. The reasoning is simple... A national sales tax doesn't require a massive bureaucracy of 100,000 people spending $11,000,000,000 dollars to process 238,000,000 tax returns that took 3,800,000,000 hours to prepare. 

The IRS's 2000 different forms are overly complicated. In 2015 the federal internal revenue code (2,412,000 words long) and federal tax regulations (7,655,000 words long) was the equivalent of roughly 160 full length, exceedingly boring, novels.  Furthermore, this total doesn't include the massive body of tax-related case law that is often vital to understanding how the code and regulations are actually applied.

When I first got excited about replacing the income tax with a sales tax I was worried that the $3,700,000,000,000 national debt at roughly than half of GDP was out of control. With the national debt closing in on $20 trillion it's fundamentally clear this growth is unsustainable and there will come a time, soon rather than later, in which the entire system will collapse upon itself.

What keeps fueling this entire process?

For starters I think both parties are to blame but it's clear to me that the Democrats continue to use the power of the ballot to "make" the rich pay their "fair share" and there will come a tipping point where the rich just say screw it.

Voting to take more and more money from one group (mostly self starters and successful entrepreneurs) to give stuff to others has always been questionable because there will come a time where the "fair share" will be deemed unfair and those paying it will stop and may even leave. For the most part the "rich" employ lawyers, accountants and tax experts who sole purpose is to understand the law better than the IRSs and figured out how not to pay taxes.  The enforcement of these rules upon the rest of us not so rich schmucks is via the Dark Side of Politics.

New England Income and Sales Taxes

I was trying to figure out what's going on with my recently adopted state and it's high taxes. I have a modest home and pay nearly $6,000 in property taxes.  I have an old car and I pay another $177 a year for my tags. Our sales tax runs 5.5% and my income is taxed at 9%. Do the math... 20% of what I make goes to state and local taxes. Add that to the 15% self employment tax and the 21% federal income tax and the government gets more of my income than I do.

Tax competition between states isn’t theory and can be readily observed among states. New England is a awesome example of how tax policy hurts economies, New Hampshire is unique example. It's total revenue per person is on par with it's surrounding states yet is the only state with no personal income tax or sales tax.

At the same time, New Hampshire is also an outlier in economic performance. It ranks the lowest in the percent of population that is considered to be low income, the highest private sector share of personal income and highest household median income. The other states, especially Maine and Vermont, have had dismal economic performance in recent years compared to New Hampshire.

New Hampshire’s neighbors know this and have passed a few laws to model themselves after New Hampshire. In one area that New England states are acting on is the income tax. In past decade, All New England states, except Connecticut which actually implemented an income tax for the first time, have either kept their income tax the same or lowered it likely to get more in line with New Hampshire.

The sales tax can create or destroy economic activity too.  At the statewide level, businesses sometimes locate just outside the borders of high sales tax areas to avoid being subjected to their rates. A stark example of this occurs in New England, where even though I-91 runs up the Vermont side of the Connecticut River, many more retail establishments choose to locate on the New Hampshire side to avoid sales taxes. One study shows that per capita sales in border counties in sales tax-free New Hampshire have tripled since the late 1950s, while per capita sales in border counties in Vermont have remained stagnant or gone down.

So here is the rub. Property taxes in Maine are more than double that of Virginia Beach and nearly double that of Boston.  Income taxes are significantly more here as well. My question is are the schools in Maine that much better than say Virginia Beach?  Are the roads better?  Are the public services better? Does it really cost that much more to live up North than down South?  There are 39 states with lower over all taxes than Maine. New Hampshire seems like it would be the lowest, having no income or sales tax, but there are 29 states with lower overall taxes than them.

That's my point. New Hampshire has figured out how to raise needed revenue without hurting their economy.  New Hampshire has found a way for everyone to pay their fair share not just the rich and the results are starting to compound. I would suggest that they eliminate the state corporate income tax and create a sales tax but that's my opinion based on years of studying tax structures and what works and what doesn't.

I will most likely die before I see meaning full tax reform. But when I first heard the idea of a National Retail Sales tax (piggy backed on the 46 states who currently have one) replacing the income tax I knew it was an idea that just made fundamental common sense. An idea who's time has come!

*Please visit taxfoundation.org

Hillary Clinton's Health Coverup

Disclaimer - I want to vote for a Republican but I'm finding it nearly impossible to vote for Mr. Trump.

After watching the second debate I noted that Hillary again looked great and I wondered where the health rumors were coming from so I started to do my own research and I've discovered Hillary Clinton absolutely has a serious health problem and although it's clear that the public is just guessing those closest to her know what it is.

My belief that Hillary Clinton has a serious medical issue is primary based on video clips that are readily available on the internet and number of medical problems actually reported to the press over the last twenty years.  The most recent 911 memorial collapse, her odd response during the balloon drop at the conclusion of the DNC convention and the crazy head bob while answering a reporters question June 10th, 2016 have convinced me something isn't right.

My belief is also based on her repeated episodes of collapsing due to dehydration, exhaustion, walking pneumonia, etc... and then seemingly being fine shortly afterwards is more indicative of an underlying neurological disorder rather than illness. Based on her lengthy congressional testimony and her looking absolutely great during the debates I doubt that her condition would preclude her from being able to serve as president but I think the voters have a right to know the truth.

On January 31st, 2005 in Buffalo, NY then Senator Hillary Clinton was scheduled to give a speech on Social Security positioning herself to make a run for president. Just as she started, she collapsed.

Hillary Clinton did not go to the hospital and no ambulance was called. "She received immediate medical attention at the site and is now proceeding with her schedule as planned," said Philippe Reines, Clinton's press secretary at the time and current Donald Trump debate prep impersonator.

This was one of Hillary's first documented total collapse and subsequent quick full recoveries without being hospitalized which leads me to believe those closest to her know what her condition is and know how to treat it.

Sometimes the truth hides in full sight. If you're sick enough that you faint it usually takes more than an hour for you to be looking great again and yet this is exactly what has happened repeatedly to Mrs. Clinton.

My belief is Secretary (soon to be President) Hillary has an underlying medical condition which she has been lying about for years, going back to her potentially fatal blood clot in 1998 which she even hide from her staff.

1st HRC and Trump Debate Down

It's done... and I nearly didn't survive.

Ninety minutes of unfiltered BS drove me to drink and drink I did. So how many people watched? According to the Nielsen company 81.4 million suffered through that sad excuse for political discourse.

My view is both of them sucked.  Hillary looked good but just kept talking and talking. Trump was uptight and drinking water. The moderator seemed to be working for Hillary asking Trump hard questions while giving Hillary a pass.

Before the debate many American's were thinking she was seriously ill. Unless something significant happens to indicated this is true her health is no longer and issue.

Once again Hillary made it clear that she doesn't think the rich are paying their fair share.  Right now the top 1% of income earners pay nearly 50% of all federal income taxes. How much more should they pay? What constitutes a fair share. It's class warfare, it's pandering and something the democrats have mastered.

I would have loved to hear Trump make the case that corporations shouldn't pay a dime of income tax. Why? Because they don't pay income tax now they just charge more for their products and services passing the cost of "their" taxation onto the consumer... Typically the middle class.

That's my take and I'm seriously sick to my stomach.