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 is the 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

Water Vapor is the 600 lb Gorilla! 

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.

Alternative to the ACA

CBO Misses Its Obamacare Projection by 24 Million People

March 2016

I was excited to buy "group" health insurance for the first time in my life. It took almost a month for me to get the website to work and I ended up getting three policy packages but still I was excited.

Then I determined I couldn't keep my doctor with any the offered ACA plans and although I signed up for dental it never worked.

A few years back a wonderful women who is a senior manager for a hospital chain let me in on an idea that is well known in her industry. Most of the things people like about Obamacare are just regulations that don't cost the tax payer a dime. Like preexisting conditions don't matter, cover kids till they turn 27, basic list of fully covered procedures, etc...

Would it make sense to eliminate the special tax treatment given all things medical and prohibited employer and group plans? Reinforce the health care safety net for those under 18 and over 65 and require everyone in the middle to have there own individual health insurance or pay a penalty come April 15th.

Right now 49% of American's are covered by their employers and yes it seems radical to change this but clearly employee offered health insurance has distorted the market to such a degree that it's nearly impossible to determine what a health care procedure is going to cost prior to billing.

This has to change!  

Buying health insurance should be like buying car or home owners insurance with a few basic rules. Rules that are now included in Obama Care.  For starters the idea that you can't find out what something is going to cost by asking your doctor "hey what's this ankle boot going to cost..." has to stop. Seriously, this isn't a new idea for a capitalistic society. Right?

Bernie Sanders Wrong - Emails Matter II

I didn't write the bulk of this but edited it so it's less wordy.

On September 11, 2012, four Americans in Libya were killed in a terrorist attack at the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

Republicans accused Clinton of putting politics over the protection of American personnel which led them to pry into her emails.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi asked for all of the State Department’s Benghazi-related emails, but State only turned over eight from Clinton. That seemed weird, so people began asking questions.

Throughout 2014, House Republicans complained that the State Department was stonewalling them for the emails.  In March 2015, the New York Times revealed why: The State Department didn’t have Clinton’s emails. It turned out Clinton had used a private email server and private account exclusively throughout the duration of her tenure as secretary of state.

Since then, there’s been something of a mad scramble for Clinton’s emails involving basically everyone and their mother. Each of the email hunters has had different incentives for trying to uncover Clinton’s emails.

- The FBI opened its investigation to learn if Clinton broke classification laws.

- Republicans in Congress, at least theoretically, want to learn more about her handling of Benghazi.

- The conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch has filed more than 20 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits over Clinton’s emails, in a move that’s hard to interpret as anything but baldly partisan.

- News outlets like Gawker, Vice News, and the Associated Press also all filed their own legal cases for Clinton’s emails in search of a better understanding of her time in the State Department.

I thought Hillary's violation of the Federal Records Act of 1950 was a big deal. Turns out it is, but it's not.  For starters the head of each agency is responsible for setting up, maintaining and ensuring records are retained and stored. She was the head of the agency which is pretty funny since she was likely the worst violator.  The Federal Records Act of only applies to government employees while employed by the government with the maximum punishment being termination of employment.

Because these different investigations and lawsuits are all slowly unfolding over the same time period, they’ve led to the slow drip of emails being released. Colin Powell was spot on.  As soon as folks started asking about her server she should have turned it over to the FBI and said... You guys got it all and I want someone put in charge to make sure personal information is not released to the public. But instead she cherry picked what she wanted released and deleted and scrubbed the server... Three months after the courts ordered the emails be preserved.

So now I understand why the emails became an issue and why this crap has just gone on and on. Part of it is Hillary the other part is there are so many people, so many cases, etc...  It's going to take years before this is over. Meaning even if she wins she is going to be weighed down by this.  Toss in likely medical issues and I got one word for you:

BERNIE

Global Warming Petition Project

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (“Global Warming Petition Project,” www.petitionproject.org, 2015)

That statement has been signed by 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhD’s.

I love that quote.

Last night my better half made a really good point:  "David why does this settled science bug you so much?"

Three reasons.

#1 Believing something just because someone else believes it just blows me away. Science is when someone has a theory, comes up with ways to test this, publishes their results and other scientists conduct tests and get the same results.  The scientific community has been wrong in the past and even forced out ideas for years the eventually proved to be right. Why can't we learn from this?

#2 Global warming now climate change looks like a power grab and it's going to cost trillions which will once again screw over the poorer nations.

#3 Lastly and more importantly it takes our eye off what we should be focused on. Massive pollution created by developing and poor counties continues at a levels that are literal killing people and the planet. I'm not talking about hidden pollution such as heavy metals... which is also a huge problem... I'm talking air you shouldn't breath, soil that is so polluted nothing will grow and rivers that you can't swim.

Cats and Litter Boxes

This morning what's left of Hurricane Hermine maxed our humidity and the house is sticky resulting in something new. My eyes started to itch like sand had blown into them. It was so bad my right eye swelled shut, I felt disorientated and my stomach was upset.

Turns out I'm more allergic to cats and specifically cat pee than I thought. The humidity activated old dried pee and spray resulting in the kitchen and downstairs bathroom reeking of cat pee.

After some research I came across this list of five mistakes people make when it comes to litter boxes. This advice is spot on and lines up with my life long experience with other peoples cats (remember I'm allergic and wouldn't own a cat) be it a girl friends or both of my daughters cats living with me from time to time.

#1 You're not cleaning the litter box enough.

Many cats won’t use the litterbox if it’s not in pristine condition. We know it’s probably not your favorite chore, but you should scoop it out at least twice daily and add more litter as needed. Clean the actual box with baking soda or unscented soap once a week. To make your life a little easier, make a litterbox kit with all the essentials (litter, bags and scoop), so you have everything handy.

#2 The litter box in a less than ideal location.

Place your cat’s litterbox in an area that’s quiet and away from resting areas, as well as food and water bowls. If there’s too much foot traffic or if it’s too close to where they eat your might opt to go to the bathroom somewhere else. Also consider how much privacy the location offers and how easy it for your cat to access it.

#3 You don't have enough litter boxes.

For many cats, having just one litterbox to use is not going to cut it. Instead follow this general rule: one litterbox per cat plus one. So if you have one cat, you’ll need two litter boxes; two cats need three litter boxes. More boxes might be necessary if your house is large or has multiple floors.

#4 The litter box is not big enough.

When it comes to litter boxes, size matters. A 2014 study conducted by veterinarian and behaviorist Norma Guy found that cats tend to prefer big litter boxes to small ones. Ideally, the litterbox should be at least one and half times the length of the cat’s body (not including the tail). Additionally, cats are not always fans of covered litter boxes, so you should try leaving it uncovered.

#5 You're not addressing your cat's stressors.

If your cat is missing the litterbox, it could be a sign that they have anxiety. Common stressors are when there is a move, new person, new baby or new pet in the household. If you have multiple cats, one of them could be bullying your favorite kitty and preventing them from using the litterbox. The stressor could even be more subtle than that. For instance, they might be stressed that you changed to a new type of litter, moved the litter box to a new location or that the depth of litter has changed. If you’re not sure what’s causing your kitty to miss the litter box, talk to your veterinarian, who may refer you to a veterinary behaviorist.

Government for the People by the People?

A President typically can only make a handful of big changes during their time in office. Why not focus on a few changes and run on that?

- Reform our tax code. The 1st Step would be to stop taxing corporations. The concept, although not a sound bite, is rather basic. Corporations don't pay tax they simply pass the cost of taxation onto consumers. Those that argue if the tax is removed corporations will just pocket the savings don't understand capitalism or haven't paid attention to what happened when the federal airline ticket tax lapsed. This one change would reduce government revenue by $320 billion in 2014 while the personal income tax raised $1,394,563,000. How can we make up the shortfall? I don't know maybe we could stop fighting other countries wars? Maybe we could abolish entire departments of the government?

- Repeal the 17th amendment (direct election of Senators).  Like the 18th amendment (probation) the 17th amendment seemed like a good idea at the time but the unintended consequences overly politicized the Senate and changed the balance of power between the legislative branch and states. What would happen? Well for starters Senators no longer have to raise millions of dollars and become beholden to those giving them money.

- Reform medical care. The idea that the government or your employer should provide health insurance makes about as much sense as them providing auto or home owners insurance. The current system is so convoluted it's basically impossible to find out what a doctor's visit or procedure will cost until you are billed. Government creating rules such as making health insurance mandatory, eliminating preexisting condition, removing lifetime caps, letting kids remain on parents plans, basic covered items, malpractice liability caps, etc... Conforms with the principles of government not running anything but serving to create a level playing field for the rest of us. 

- Instant Runoff Voting.  It's an electoral system whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference. In the event that one candidate fails to achieve 50+ percent of the vote, the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and these voters second choice is used with the process being repeated until one candidate achieves the required majority. Why? The two parties system was never meant to be so dominant it's actually codified.  IRV would allow voters to vote for who they think the best candidate would be without feeling like they are wasting their vote. A few States already do this outright and many do it with absentee voting.

- In order to accomplish the first goal of eliminating corporate income taxes it would likely be necessary to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government. Do we really need all fifteen cabinet level Departments of the executive branch of government?

Department of the Treasury - Established: 1789

Department of State - Established: 1789

Department of War - Established: 1789  (Became Department of Defense in 1947)

Department of the Interior - Established: 1849

Department of Agriculture - Established: 1862

Department of Justice - Established: 1870

Department of Commerce - Established: 1903

Department of Labor - Established: 1913

Department of Defense - Established: 1947

Department of Health, Education and Welfare - Established: 1953 

Department of Housing and Urban Development - Established: 1965

Department of Transportation - Established: 1966

Department of Energy - Established: 1977

Department of Education - Established: 1979

Department of Veterans Affairs - Established: 1989 (Replaced by the VA in 1930)

Department of Homeland Security - Established: 2002

Why eliminate a huge government agency?  For starts some are clearly ineffective, obsolete, have created more problems than they have solved.  Others are duplicate what the States already do.

I think the following Departments could be massively scaled back it not eliminated: Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Department of Education and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Lastly I would change the Department of Defense back to the Department of War and the Department of Homeland Security would become the Department of Defense.

Clearly this seems radical but if you break it down, department by department it makes sense.  For example do we really need a department of Agriculture anymore? How many kids does the Federal government educate? Isn't the Department of Transportation just duplicating what the States already do?

The Federal government is the definition of bloat.  Mitt Romney likely lost his bid to become president when he commented that 47% of the population takes from the government.  Since when does stating a fact become insensitive? If you add up everyone who works for the government, collects social security, collects a military pension, etc... You get about 47%.

Democrats who say the top 1% of income earners, who currently pay about 43% of income taxes aren't paying their fair share are absolutely nuts.  Government has gotten too big and with 45% of American's paying no income tax something has to give.  I don't want to crush the poor but right now they have no stake in the game and it’s clear the expansion of government is directly linked with American's wanting their government to do more without them having to pay for it.  This is a recipe for a failed system and there are 20,000,000,000 cracks in our foundation and there is no fix in sight.

A good start toward changing this would be honest and educated the American public that corporations don't pay income tax... They just charge more and give the government your money.

Bernie Sanders Wrong - Emails Matter

The Justice Department has made it official that Hillary Clinton had thousands of work-related emails on her private server that were not turned over.

That although they declined to prosecute the Justice Department stated that Hillary Clinton sent emails regarding top secret discussions. Discussions of very serious matters involving national security.

The issue is seemingly basic in that Clinton's personal email server contained government, Clinton foundation and personal emails which at the very least violates widely known government regulations that require the capture and preservation of work-related documents. Her statements that the capture and preservation occurred when she emailed other government officials is plausible but not inline with the spirit of the regulation.

It has been reported that top Democrats are asking reporters if they know of anything or heard anything that still hasn't been released. They are collectively holding their breath to see if anything more will surface before November.

During Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State, State department representative Huma Abedin, Hillary's long time adviser & confident, the wife of the now infamous former Congressman Anthony Weiner, was sent to New York to work with the Clinton Foundation.  For approximately six months she worked for BOTH the state department (Hillary Clinton) and the Clinton Foundation (Bill Clinton).

In February 2016, The Washington Post Reported: "The United States Department of State issued a subpoena to the Clinton Foundation in fall of 2015. According to the report, the subpoena focused on "documents about the charity's projects that may have required approval from federal government during Hillary Clinton's term as secretary of state" and "also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton's personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons".

Bob Woodard made it pretty clear last Sunday that this was a massive conflict of interest. Having a close aid to the Secretary of State working with donors to the Clinton foundation and then having some staffers arrange meeting to said donors is not copacetic.

Voter ID laws Should be Overturned

Dear Rob Bell,

I'm a long time, hard core, Virginia Republican and I don't support voter ID requirements.

Why?  Well for starters I've worked the polls for years and know that voter fraud is NOT a problem.

Experts agree we are talking about less than a handful of cases per year in the entire state and I would much rather see your efforts going after real fraud.

A while back one of our state universities did a study with the help of the State Department.

They obtained the current list of legal aliens who were in the process of applying for citizenship.  They bounced this list off of the voter registration list and guess what?

Yep, something like 3,000+ folks were voting who were not citizens likely thanks, I'm guessing, to the motor voter laws that pretty much registers everyone up who gets a drivers license.

So in a nut shell not all Republican's agree with voter ID laws and some of us consider them blatantly unconstitutional.

ID to cash a check - YES!

ID to buy beer - YES!

ID to buy Claritin D - YES!

ID to vote - NO!

Thanks,

Dave

PS  I write because in my world there exists two groups of elected Republicans. Those that pander and those that want to lead. The bill you support is pandering and frankly it pisses me off.

*****

Updated to year 2021 - A few years ago my feelings on this changed. It's rare, but I got this one wrong and I'm okay with saying so. My opinion was based on dealing with small local precincts in Virginia, not large cities where everyone dealing with the elections seemingly are political hacks. Furthermore, I learned something about racism I never even heard of or understood... The racism of low expectations. Thinking that old people have issues with technology and poor people have issues getting IDs was wrong. The numbers of people not capable of getting IDs must be compared to the number not able to bank, buy booze, fly or treat their allergies.

Is High School a Privilege?

The other day I was pondering why private school costs about half as much as public but on whole consistently produce better results?  Sure I've noticed there are more secretaries, principals, support staff and assistant teachers in public schools but the bureaucracy costs associated with a bloated educational system is only part of the problem. It's more likely the cost associated with unfunded Federal mandates that private schools are exempt from, are at the root of the problem.

If a school doesn't accept federal funding it doesn't have to comply with IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).  This alone creates massive savings.  However, I think it's safe to say that private schools do better because they don't have to accept every student.

Here is my thought.  Should moving up to high school be automatic?  Should pretty much all 8th graders go on to high school?  Should the government be required to provide a high school education to age 21?

For example does it make sense for kids with fetal alcohol syndrome to be sitting next to a college bound senior?

I don't have a solution, I just know that an oppositional defiant disorder student "504 - Accommodation" that comes late to school virtually everyday, talks on his cell phone during class, has been arrested several times and is pretty much the worst possible kid to have in class is required by law to be educated is a political correctness nightmare.

The conundrum... It's cheaper to educate then incarcerate and clearly education is much better for society.  Education for most is key but public education suffers when good intentions result in unintended consequences.  What can be done?  All I know is change is needed.  What are other countries doing?

Do not leave packages at my front door...

This Christmas was my first stolen package. When I saw footprints in the newly fallen snow of a young person climbing up my stairs just far enough to check if another package was ready for pilfering I thought about what I could do.

Security cameras?

Put a decoy box out with a locator chip to catch the perpetrator?

Motion sensing spot lights?

Turns out a simple sign asking for packages to be delivered to the side door was all that I needed. It would seem that most perpetrators can read so now they know packages are at the side door. Walking up the drive adds just enough risk and effort to balance the equation in my favor.

Hold Hearings and Vote!

Dear Republican Majority,

Advise and consent on the President's Supreme court nomination. It's your constitutional duty and your job.

The President has nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland give him a hearing.

Sincerely,

David Beemer

400 ppm reached!

As on November (updated January 5th) world wide CO2 has broken the 400 ppm barrier for the first time... in recorded history.

There is no argument that since 1900 the Earth's surface temperature, on average, has gone up by roughly 1.32 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels have risen about 8 inches.

There is no argument CO2 has gone from 300 to 400 ppm... A 33% increase... Which based on isotopic study is man made and not volcanoes or massive forest fires.

However, it's inconvenient to mention that this increase is only 1 part in 10,000 in the atmosphere on whole.  That water vapor, NOT CO2, is the mother of all green house gases.

Water vapor averages a whopping 30,000 ppm and serves a huge role in keeping infrared radiation in the atmosphere and our planet livable but is barely mentioned in the recent IPCC publication.

Jim Hansen's, the father of global warming, initial ground breaking research on how green house gases trap heat was modeled on Venus not Earth.

Venus - 96.5% CO2
Earth - .0400% CO2

Lastly... Once again I ask what THREE gasses make up 99.96% (ish) of Earth's atmosphere?

Here's a hint... CO2 is not one of them!

My passion is leaving the planet better off after I'm gone.  I very much want to improve the lives of millions with clean water, air and land.  To leave the world a better, cleaner more livable place for me being alive.

Unfortunately CO2 is getting the lion's share of public attention... and money while countries such as China, India, Pakistan and most of Africa continue to pollute on a scale that's essentially ignored by the developed world.  Let's help them clean up their act with actions that have measurable and dramatic impact on people lives and the health of our shared environment. 

McAuliffe Would Not Be Virginia's Governor if...

The argument that Terry McAuliffe would not be Virginia's Governor if the GOP had a primary verses a convention last election cycle is BS.  Regardless of your leanings it's clear this race was MUCH closer than anyone thought it was going to be and had the GOP rallied around "our" candidate or if the Beach's RINO Mayor hadn't endorsed McAuliffe, things would likely have been different.

Having attended a few conventions and voting in countless primaries (both Democrat and Republican) I tend to think each year is different and that is why there's a back room party vote to determine if we should have a convention or a primary. In Virginia everyone can vote in primaries meaning Republican's don't always pick their candidate.

Next you have the money issue... For example how much money was spent by Scott Rigell to win his first primary? How much was spent in total? Nearly $2,000,000 that how much! Do we really want to exclude the "citizen" from running for Congress? Or more importantly, in a close race do we want to spend a million doing the Democrats work of tearing down our eventual nominee?

Primaries by their very nature are drawn out ordeals. The human resources expended on primaries is massive and when it's all said and done people from each camp hate each other... a little. Whereas the convention is comparatively swift and nearly painless with little rancor other than that from those who wanted a primary.  Heck even a canvas is better than a full blown primary.

Forget about the media they pretty much ignore local races and I'm sorry but unless it's weather or sports there's not much for them to bite into.

Some groups seem to be disenfranchised in this process such as the poor, ederly and active duty military who can't attend.  Regarding the military they really don't vote in primaries. The elderly and those who can't afford a weekend in Richmond because the price of politics is too high or they are just not mobile... clearly you haven't seen the stuff that I've witnessed at conventions. Old people, poor people, people fresh out of the asylum... Good God it's just crazy and I love it as smart organization over come these obstacles by the bus load.

That said, being able to "slate" votes locally is a great option but not according to some party redcoats in Virginia Beach.  I'm not sure about state wide but I sure like to see Randy Forbes run in the new 4th District with a convention determining who is going to represent Republican's in the 2nd Congressional. A primary for an "open" Congressional seat is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy or Gary Byler for that matter.  Okay maybe Gary.

So even if we don't have a big convention in Richmond why couldn't the 2nd District have a little convention? Conventions in my mind bring the party together, keep 99% of the democrats out, save the candidates huge money, concentrate the primary into a few weeks verses months, keeps our infighting and squabbles within the family and allows the party to emerge with a unified voice.

Down side... It could be argued that the outcome is not always the best for the party statewide since enthusiasm, excitement and conservatism seem to attract the most delegates.

Lastly the argument that a primary is "free" doesn't fit the conservative mindset any more than the Presidents proposal to expand free public education to grade 14.  Free is a big part in the math getting us to $18,939,000,000,000+ in debt... not including future federal obligations we are already on the hook for!

Randy Forbes Don't Give up the Fourth!

Randy Forbes should not "run away" from running in the newly defined 4th Congressional District.

Although there is no requirement for a member of Congress to live in the District for which they seek office it's an unwritten rule and Randy Forbes should run not jump ship to run in the 2nd district. I suspect that Gary Byler is up to his old tricks and back room deals which has in the past and will again ultimately hurt the party.

Regardless of what Randy decides, there should be a GOP convention and those interested enough to participate will determine who is going to represent the 2nd District in November. Unlike a primary, a convention will not besmirch the ultimate victor. A convention will be quick. A convention will unite the 2nd District. A convention will preserve campaign dollars for the race in November.

Congressman Forbes is the only republican popular enough to carry the new 4th Congressional District and I encourage him run for the sake of the Republican Party.

CO2 CO2 CO2 - Argggggg

Breaking news - The world's governments agree to spend trillions to control the climate. Trillions... Not on potable water, not on hunger, not on disease...

What really gets me going is the recent prediction that the current Paris agreement would only halt warming at 2 degrees Celsius but that other groups are protesting this arguing warming must be halted at 1.5 degrees.

I'm just scratching my head remembering the blog I did a while back documenting my efforts to determine the world consensus on the amount of warming since 1900. 

Spoiler alert there is no consensus.

If governments and the scientific community can't agree on what the average surface temperature increase has been since 1900 how can they accurately measure change? 

Scientist are acting as if there is a model that exist that can predict how many tons of CO2 must be eliminated to halt warming at 2 degrees.  This though invokes a level of SWAG beyond comprehension.  (SWAG = Scientific Wild Ass Guess)  Many articles published before, during and after the Paris United Nations Conference on Climate Change passionately support the 1.5 degree over the 2.0 degree limit which baffles me.  Why not 1.0 degree?

Instead of agreeing on an arbitrary increases my hope is that the worlds governments will HELP developing economies such as China, India, Pakistan and all those in Africa who actively "pollute" the air, water and land to a level that is unfathomable. 

Instead of spending trillions on CO2 mitigation why not spend trillions on helping the developing world stop polluting the air, water and land?  Why can't the developed world help the developing world create a healthy environment?  Compared to CO2 mitigation, cleaner air, water and land is the low hanging environmental fruit and I argue cleaning this up first is common sense.

If clean air, water and land are just too mundane you can always go after trace pharmaceuticals, mercury, soil loss, over fishing, deforestation, etc... The list I'm sad to say goes on and on.

PS  Looking at NASA's imaging it's clear that developing countries are burning everything they can to heat and cook.  The United States is clearly doing something right so lets us help the areas in RED become BLUE and clean up our ever so fragile atmosphere in a way that will directly impact our blue marble in space.

Why Amtrak Sucks

The concept is pretty simple.  Provide mass transportation that is as fast as or faster than driving.  If priced around what gas and tolls cost people will ride.

If you can provide a comfortable setting, clean bathrooms, good food and drink... It will become popular and I would venture actually make money.

Right now Amtrak only manages to meet one of those criteria in that the cars are comfortable.  So why does Amtrak consistently lose money?  For starters they can't even make money selling concessions to a captive audience.

The railroad's inspector general audited by the GAO concluded Amtrak loses about $80 million a year selling food. From 2002 to 2012 Amtrak's food service lost $834 million.  For example Amtrak charges about $2 for a soft drink while costing taxpayers about $3.40 and don't even think about a hamburger that costs taxpayers $16 and tastes like...

My suggestion is to have the federal government take full responsible for the tracks, crossings, bridges, etc... while fostering competition among more than one rail company.  Who knows, one day Norfolk Southern, CSX, Union Pacific or BSNF might offer something akin to the Uber ride service.  However, right now that’s just a pipe dream even as Amtrak’s losses decreased to only $227,000,000 in 2014.