The other day I watched Noble Prize wining physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever give a talk on why he doesn't agree with the "97% of scientists" who believe that man is responsible for warming planet and I'm thinking this guys knows what he's talking about.
A few days later I checked out the Skeptical Science website which poked fun at him using two Noble Prize winning scientists agreeing with the IPCC projections and conclusion. The sad thing is both of the Skeptical Science's Noble Prize scientists bashing Dr. Ivar Giaever could barely talk or maintain their argument.
The media loves to talk about consensus but the truth is consensus has little to do with scientific truth. Throughout history wildly accepted scientific theories have been begrudgingly proven false after some unheard of scientist typically spends his life trying to convince the scientific community they are wrong.
Getting ready for a three hour flight I downloaded a bunch of TED talks. One of them had a very educated lady explaining how we were heading towards an Ice Free Planet and action must be taken before it's too late. To say this passionate plea is deceptive is being nice. To give the impression that Greenland and Antarctica could be ice free anytime soon (a few hundred years verses 5,000+) is beyond total BS!
Turns out there are dozens of talks on TED dealing with global warming/climate change. I haven't watched them all but it's interesting to note there isn't a single talk that even mentions the dozens of climate drivers that we know about and new ones that are just now being discovered. Some how CO2 owns the discussion which for me signals a political agenda NOT the search for scientific truth.
Even under the warmest projections Greenland needs thousands of years to melt. For starters the melting season is never going to be more then a few months and we are talking about one huge chunk of ice pretty much the size of Europe.
Don't get me started about Antarctica which NASA has concluded is actually gaining ice. Of course there are still highly respected IPCC members like Jim Hansen saying just the opposite using NASA's old studies.
Yes huge chunks of ice, some the size of Delaware, have broken off the Western ice shelf in recent years but any high school graduate is supposed to know this ice shelf breakup, while indicative of a warming planet will not directly raise sea levels... The ice melting in your drink doesn't raise the level in your glass. So the next time someone talks about an Ice Free Planet raise your hand and ask "when?". If they don't confess they are talking 3,000+ years I suggest you get up an silently walk towards an exit.
PS The UN's IPCC doesn't acknowledge that billions of people are living in conditions that actually pollute the environment to a degree that we all suffer. If we help the developing world develop it would actually reduce suffering and everyday pollution benefiting us all.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Saturday, February 17, 2018
School Shootings?
Philip Bump of the Washington Post estimates there have been more than 188 shootings at schools and universities in the United States with more than 200 killed since the turn of the century.
*** Correction *** There have been 20 mass (3+ killed) "School Shootings" since the turn of the century. Seems that Mr. Bump included drive by shootings, single discharges, suicides, etc... pretty much anything to increase the numbers. Sorry I didn't expect such data manipulation from my once favorite paper in the age of Google?
My research indicates that knives, bombs and fires have also been used in mass school killings. One very sad example of a bomb and subsequent fire occurred 90 years ago in Michigan when a bomb and subsequent fire killed 44. Sadly 38 were elementary schoolchildren.
I know it's not popular to point out the obvious but school shootings are exceedingly rare. The U.S. has 139,126 educational institutions and gun violence deaths have averaged 12 per year since 2000. That seems like a lot but keep in mind there are roughly 50,700,000 students.
Putting things into perspective is important. For example thousands of kids die choking every year. Kids are much more likely to die riding the bus. National data show school bus-related accidents send 17,000 children to emergency rooms each year!
Statistically our nations young people are exceedingly safe at school but that's not the drum the ratings hungry media or pandering leftist politicians beat.
Nonstop coverage for weeks after school shootings is about ratings (what ever happened to not showing the shooters picture?) and it's likely this coverage has resulted in more copycat school shootings. Regardless, something need to change.
Some schools in Texas and Ohio are trying something different with positive results thus far but this narrative, no matter how successful, is blasphemy to the left.
Some states pass laws that don't make "sense" but clearly reduce gun violance yet many on the Left seek repeal because those laws don't fit their "common sense" narrative. Sometimes laws are shown ineffective and repealed but the Left continues pushing them because they align with their world views.
Something new should be tried. Maybe it's time we as a nation revisit gun free zones? Maybe apply the "air marshal" concept to schools? A few trained and certified concealed carry teachers or staff would at the very least reduce the impression schools are soft targets.
Raise the age to buy guns to 21?
Raise the age to buy ammo to 21?
Limit magazine size to initial design?
Allow licensed health care professionals to anonymously red flag a patient?
Allow school principals to anonymously red flag a student?
Bumpstocks? The ban is proceeding though the administrative rule process which takes longer than most realize.
Some argue guns at school in the hands of someone even with training could be as dangerous as a shooter. I happen to agree with this and suggest an effective non-lethal alternative using the high-tech Swedish pepper spray gun?
*** Correction *** There have been 20 mass (3+ killed) "School Shootings" since the turn of the century. Seems that Mr. Bump included drive by shootings, single discharges, suicides, etc... pretty much anything to increase the numbers. Sorry I didn't expect such data manipulation from my once favorite paper in the age of Google?
My research indicates that knives, bombs and fires have also been used in mass school killings. One very sad example of a bomb and subsequent fire occurred 90 years ago in Michigan when a bomb and subsequent fire killed 44. Sadly 38 were elementary schoolchildren.
I know it's not popular to point out the obvious but school shootings are exceedingly rare. The U.S. has 139,126 educational institutions and gun violence deaths have averaged 12 per year since 2000. That seems like a lot but keep in mind there are roughly 50,700,000 students.
Putting things into perspective is important. For example thousands of kids die choking every year. Kids are much more likely to die riding the bus. National data show school bus-related accidents send 17,000 children to emergency rooms each year!
Statistically our nations young people are exceedingly safe at school but that's not the drum the ratings hungry media or pandering leftist politicians beat.
Nonstop coverage for weeks after school shootings is about ratings (what ever happened to not showing the shooters picture?) and it's likely this coverage has resulted in more copycat school shootings. Regardless, something need to change.
Some schools in Texas and Ohio are trying something different with positive results thus far but this narrative, no matter how successful, is blasphemy to the left.
Some states pass laws that don't make "sense" but clearly reduce gun violance yet many on the Left seek repeal because those laws don't fit their "common sense" narrative. Sometimes laws are shown ineffective and repealed but the Left continues pushing them because they align with their world views.
Something new should be tried. Maybe it's time we as a nation revisit gun free zones? Maybe apply the "air marshal" concept to schools? A few trained and certified concealed carry teachers or staff would at the very least reduce the impression schools are soft targets.
Raise the age to buy guns to 21?
Raise the age to buy ammo to 21?
Limit magazine size to initial design?
Allow licensed health care professionals to anonymously red flag a patient?
Allow school principals to anonymously red flag a student?
Bumpstocks? The ban is proceeding though the administrative rule process which takes longer than most realize.
Some argue guns at school in the hands of someone even with training could be as dangerous as a shooter. I happen to agree with this and suggest an effective non-lethal alternative using the high-tech Swedish pepper spray gun?
However non-lethal ideas will not work in five extremely liberal states. Why? Because they are illegal. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and don't forget to teach your kids to chew their food and all kidding aside maybe safety belts should be required on school buses.
Saturday, January 27, 2018
White Privilege is Raciest
There are MORE poor whites, whites on food stamps, whites with bad teeth, whites without health care, etc... in America than ANY other group.
Being born white or black isn't "the" key. Being born in the US (or coming here early in your life) to loving parents who sacrifice to give you advantages who are willing to provide structure and demand some form of excellence, etc... That's much more powerful than skin color.
For example there is the story of a poor Asian kid growing up in the ghetto, hiding in his closet to study because he was fearful of getting shot not getting into MIT, Havard, Princeton, etc... With 1530 SAT scores because he's Asian... That's racism but somehow accepted in our society.
Until recently The United States Coast Guard Academy was 100% merit-based and diversity was achieved through diversity of interests and abilities but there has been massive pressure to increase the number of black cadets.
And now it has become clear the Coast Guard Academy has changed it's 100% merit-based system by adding racial weight to ultimately increase blacks in the officer ranks of the Coast Guard. Unfortunately this hasn't dramatically increased the number of blacks attending the Coast Guard Academy.
I would rather a government supported school admit the best best candidates as possible regardless of color. Does that make me a racist?
I would argue that height has more to do with a man's success than skin color.
I would argue growing up in a wealthy family has more to do with success than skin color.
I would argue growing up on the coasts rather than the heart land has more to do with success than skin color.
If the Coast Guard has a goal to increase blacks in it's officer ranks to more closely match society as a whole they should step up recruitment of outstanding African Americans not change standards.
Changing standards or creating limiting quotas is inherently racist and it blows me away that the left doesn't see this.
Friday, December 1, 2017
Millions of Jobs are Looking for Workers
President Obama repeatedly said college is the key to success. Bennie Sanders wants college to be "free" and nearly became the Democratic candidate for President. As a casual observer it sure seems that the narrative from our political leaders, at least from the left, is the key to success is dependent on higher education, specifically a college degree.
Really?
Ask the next ten people serving you at Starbucks how much college education they have. The results would shock you. Getting a college degree doesn't always translate to a "good" job as universally thought.
There are millions of good paying jobs from plumber, welder, electrician to classics like sales rep that pay high wages, offer advancement and for the most part do not require a college degree. Millions of these jobs are unfilled in our economy and believe it or not this is a growing challenge our nation faces. Our desperate need for more tradesmen is stifling economic growth.
So what's the disconnect?
Well it turns out in many school districts getting into a technical school has become very competitive. The kids that likely would not do well in college are not gravitating to technical schools because they are not smart enough to get in.
Furthermore, it's my belief the country is biased against trade jobs.
Crazy... The kids who should be thinking plumber, auto technician, etc... Aren't getting into the technology schools which have essentially become magnet programs and they are being told these jobs a below them anyway.
All the while the left is literally marching for a $15 dollar per hour minimum wage.
Solution?
Stop bad mouthing the trades and a days work for an honest wage. Bring back shop class to all middle schools and expand high school programs that train in the trades. Instead of trying to funnel more and more students into "free" college consider offering training in high school that has direct application to decent and honorable employment for anyone who is interested.
The reality is the country is in desperate need of workers to fill high paying technical no college needed jobs. This is a huge problem that "Dirty Jobs" star Mike Rowe has been stressing for years.
Really?
Ask the next ten people serving you at Starbucks how much college education they have. The results would shock you. Getting a college degree doesn't always translate to a "good" job as universally thought.
There are millions of good paying jobs from plumber, welder, electrician to classics like sales rep that pay high wages, offer advancement and for the most part do not require a college degree. Millions of these jobs are unfilled in our economy and believe it or not this is a growing challenge our nation faces. Our desperate need for more tradesmen is stifling economic growth.
So what's the disconnect?
Well it turns out in many school districts getting into a technical school has become very competitive. The kids that likely would not do well in college are not gravitating to technical schools because they are not smart enough to get in.
Furthermore, it's my belief the country is biased against trade jobs.
Crazy... The kids who should be thinking plumber, auto technician, etc... Aren't getting into the technology schools which have essentially become magnet programs and they are being told these jobs a below them anyway.
All the while the left is literally marching for a $15 dollar per hour minimum wage.
Solution?
Stop bad mouthing the trades and a days work for an honest wage. Bring back shop class to all middle schools and expand high school programs that train in the trades. Instead of trying to funnel more and more students into "free" college consider offering training in high school that has direct application to decent and honorable employment for anyone who is interested.
The reality is the country is in desperate need of workers to fill high paying technical no college needed jobs. This is a huge problem that "Dirty Jobs" star Mike Rowe has been stressing for years.
Monday, October 30, 2017
NASA Hypes Climate Change?
Across the bottom of NASA's Global Climate Change webpage the numbers are listed:
- Carbon Dioxide ⬆406.94 parts per million
- Global Temperature ⬆1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880
- Arctic Ice Minimum ⬇13.2 percent per decade
- Land Ice ⬇286.0 Gigatonnes per year
- Sea Level ⬆3.4 millimeters per year
Carbon Dioxide ⬆406.94 parts per million?
406.94 is the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere not the increase. It should read:
It's easy to find NASA's CO2 readings and CO2 has been accurately recorded since 1850. Even NASA acknowledges man's CO2 contributions were insignificant until the late 1940s. If you back out the naturally occurring CO2 increase due temperature increases and crunch the numbers, the man made increase in CO2 is roughly 75 ppm since 1850.
Understanding sea level rise isn't rocket science. A rise in sea level commiserate to that experienced during the Roman Empire can be dealt with. It's important to note very few people vacation where it's cold and even NASA says the greening of the planet, do to increased CO2, is a good thing.
- Carbon Dioxide ⬆406.94 parts per million
- Global Temperature ⬆1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880
- Arctic Ice Minimum ⬇13.2 percent per decade
- Land Ice ⬇286.0 Gigatonnes per year
- Sea Level ⬆3.4 millimeters per year
Carbon Dioxide ⬆406.94 parts per million?
406.94 is the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere not the increase. It should read:
Carbon Dioxide ⬆116.14 parts per million since 1880
It's easy to find NASA's CO2 readings and CO2 has been accurately recorded since 1850. Even NASA acknowledges man's CO2 contributions were insignificant until the late 1940s. If you back out the naturally occurring CO2 increase due temperature increases and crunch the numbers, the man made increase in CO2 is roughly 75 ppm since 1850.
Maybe NASA believes a 75 ppm increase in a gas essential to life on Earth is not titillating enough to warrant billions of dollars being spent annually researching an issue that is settled science.
There is no doubt most scientists acknowledge the Earth has warmed and oceans have risen for the last few hundred years. It's clear, based on ocean level records that we have been warming for about 11,000 years with intermittent periods of cooling. Please note the Earth is still in the
Pleistocene ice Age and there is little to no evidence to suggest this is going to end anytime soon.
Coordinating thousands upon thousands of historical temperature readings, extrapolating readings from areas with no measurements, determining various heat sink effects, blending different temperature proxies is fraught with systematic error and bias.
Using ocean levels as a temperature proxy sure seems to be a better way to determine the past, present and possibly future climate changes.
There is no doubt most scientists acknowledge the Earth has warmed and oceans have risen for the last few hundred years. It's clear, based on ocean level records that we have been warming for about 11,000 years with intermittent periods of cooling. Please note the Earth is still in the
Pleistocene ice Age and there is little to no evidence to suggest this is going to end anytime soon.
Coordinating thousands upon thousands of historical temperature readings, extrapolating readings from areas with no measurements, determining various heat sink effects, blending different temperature proxies is fraught with systematic error and bias.
Using ocean levels as a temperature proxy sure seems to be a better way to determine the past, present and possibly future climate changes.
Understanding sea level rise isn't rocket science. A rise in sea level commiserate to that experienced during the Roman Empire can be dealt with. It's important to note very few people vacation where it's cold and even NASA says the greening of the planet, do to increased CO2, is a good thing.
Friday, September 15, 2017
Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Science 28 Aug 1981
"Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide"
By:
J.Hansen
D. Johnson
A. Lacis
S. Lebedeff
P. Lee
D. Rind
G. Russell
One could argue this paper is the backbone of the global warming now climate change debate. I think it's important to note how many times this paper is referenced and how many of the authors end up pier reviewing one another. If this paper is actually fundamentally flawed then the entire narrative of CO2 driving climate would be flawed as well.
Many scientists in unrelated fields accept at face value what their fellow scientists write papers about and publish. It's important to note history is replete with examples of one or two scientist proving a prevailing idea wrong and theories false sometimes over a life long struggle.
Just a thought...
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Not all Confederate Monuments Created Equal
Professor Brundage,
Sir, I just read your article about the Confederate monuments and I mostly agree with you and think the country as a whole should look at each monument and question it's origins, funding and timing of construction before recommending removal.
That said, it troubles me that Baltimore took down four statues, under the cover of darkness, one if which was the 5th Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States. We need to remember the Supreme Court can and does get it wrong... sometimes unanimously!
Clearly a bunch of statues and monuments are Jim Crow BS but some are not and some are without question works of art. Being a Harvard grad I have no doubt renaming Yale (named after a former slave trader) would make you grin but I'm guessing you understand there has to be a point where we must acknowledge our past and own it.
Could this ongoing effort to sanitize history of offensive confederate monuments in fact be driving a wedge between the races? Why does the left continue to focus on the unimportant when there are so many important things going on in our country that need addressing.
I'm a Minnesota boy who now lives in Maine and I for one think race relations have degraded over the last decade and it saddens me.
I hope that you will continue your research and address the monuments that were erected before or after Jim Crow and those that are truly works of art be respected and if possible left alone.
Warm Regards,
Dave Beemer
Bath, Maine
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
Eclipse 2017
Six months ago I came up with the idea of going to Utah, visit my Nephew Andy and see the eclipse with my daughter Heidi. When it was clear Heidi wasn't able to make the trip (she just took over her 1st command) I asked my college roommate if he wanted to go. Not only did Rick want to go he was going to bring his son Marc.
Thus the "broclipse" was born.
We camped on government land right next to a nice size creek and hiked up a good size hill to establish our eclipse base and in a nut shell it was awesome!
Thus the "broclipse" was born.
We camped on government land right next to a nice size creek and hiked up a good size hill to establish our eclipse base and in a nut shell it was awesome!
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick"
Few things spin me up more regarding global warming/climate change than government funded scientists not making their data, methodologies and in some cases the computer programs used to reduce data or model their data public.
Mr. Mann, while on the payroll of the State of Virginia, created the now famous hockey stick graph that Al Gore continues to use to show audiences that the warming in the last 100 years is unprecedented and rapidly increasing.
However upon the conclusion of a six year lawsuit Mr. Mann still failed to produce his data, methodology and computer code as direct by the Canadian Supreme Court.
Could the graph that started this debate be at least partially bogus?
Since 1900 the Earth has warmed, sea levels have risen and man is taking the blame because this hasn't happened before at anything like this rate... or so the narrative goes.
But it has if you actually look at the publicly available data going back as recently as the 12th century you would know this isn't true. Furthermore, if you're a paleo climatologist you know things such as 200 year droughts in the Midwest have happened in the past and will happen again.
But it has if you actually look at the publicly available data going back as recently as the 12th century you would know this isn't true. Furthermore, if you're a paleo climatologist you know things such as 200 year droughts in the Midwest have happened in the past and will happen again.
Why can't the left focus on clean air, water and land? This would help a billion people move from huts with no electricity, running water and indoor plumbing into homes that do.
Michael Mann needs to come clean and produce his data. Al Gore needs to stop using the hockey stick that even professor Mann has changed and don't get me started about the 420 thousand year ice core data that shows CO2 lags temperature increases by hundreds of years.
Our planet has issues and man absolutly can F@&$ it up. However, preventing a billion people from entering the 20th let alone the 21st century is wrong and frankly just bad for the planet.
Our planet has issues and man absolutly can F@&$ it up. However, preventing a billion people from entering the 20th let alone the 21st century is wrong and frankly just bad for the planet.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Glitchy Military Software
A glitchy software upgrade to the ALIS ground support system has grounded the Marine Corps F-35B squadron based in Yuma, Arizona. An entire squadron is grounded after a software update? Couldn't someone extrapolate this to mean it's possible to hack military software?
I honesty doubt it but I do know in the 90's missile shooters would have to coordinate going off line with surrounding ships for a total reboot of their software daily and sometimes as needed. During that time the ship was completely vulnerable to air attack.
Buggy software is nothing new and clearly there are vulnerabilities that could be exploited in the right circumstances. It's time for the US government to rethink its recruitment process of discriminating against hiring hackers and software engineers who for example have crazy tattoos or used drugs in the past.
The Russians may no longer have a Navy, Air Force or Army that can compete with United States. However, they have some of the world's best computer programmers and hackers.
It's not a coincidence that China and Russia have the best computer programmers in the world and the US comes in at something like 10th. It's high time that the US gets into the game because the best equipment in the world is just scrap metal if the software crashes.
I honesty doubt it but I do know in the 90's missile shooters would have to coordinate going off line with surrounding ships for a total reboot of their software daily and sometimes as needed. During that time the ship was completely vulnerable to air attack.
Buggy software is nothing new and clearly there are vulnerabilities that could be exploited in the right circumstances. It's time for the US government to rethink its recruitment process of discriminating against hiring hackers and software engineers who for example have crazy tattoos or used drugs in the past.
The Russians may no longer have a Navy, Air Force or Army that can compete with United States. However, they have some of the world's best computer programmers and hackers.
It's not a coincidence that China and Russia have the best computer programmers in the world and the US comes in at something like 10th. It's high time that the US gets into the game because the best equipment in the world is just scrap metal if the software crashes.
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Bill Clinton & The Blue Dress
When Virginia's former Governor Bob McDonnell's legal case went to the jury I blogged what I thought the outcome would be and was shocked by the jury's verdict. However, I stuck by my logic and as it turned out I was later proved correct by SCOTUS in a rare unanimous overturning of a lower courts decision.
During the last few months it's become clear to me the Democrats have formulated a plan of maximum resistance to everything Trump. From the initial attempts to corrupt the Electoral College, to the false narrative that Trump lost the election by nearly 3,000,000 votes. I believe the Neil Gorsuch vote was the demarcation from politics as usual, albeit bitter and divided, to Democrats and the "mainstream media" realizing the only card they have left to play is full on resistance by any means.
This effort has reached critical mass as Hillary Clinton takes the helm and leads the push back against everything Trump by helping to fund and organize the "Resistance".
As Trump rolls back regulations, signs executive orders and Congress gears up to appeal the ACA, reform the tax code and roll back parts of of Dodd Frank, which even Hillary admitted was fundamentally flawed, it's clear this "Resistance" isn't politics as usual.
Do anything, say anything, repeat lies over and over until they are true, fake news, leak information and basically do what ever you can to derail anything and everything Republican is the playbook.
This is NOT politics as usual. This is something new. Something fundamentally at odds with the precept that elections have consequence and a fundamental disconnect with reality... the Republican's control the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the governor’s mansion or the state legislative chamber in 44 states.
This is NOT politics as usual. This is something new. Something fundamentally at odds with the precept that elections have consequence and a fundamental disconnect with reality... the Republican's control the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the governor’s mansion or the state legislative chamber in 44 states.
While the "Left" and the new world order tries to come to grip with their feelings the conservative right has locked up the country. If the Democrats continue this strategy of resistance without compromise there is no doubt the midterm elections will further punish the Democrats specifically in the Senate.
Knowing the Democrats will absolutely continue playing the only card they have - Total Resistance - I urge Congress and the President to press on with their legislative agenda.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
NOAA Continues to Blow off Congress
In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.
The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.
Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply.
During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistle-blowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda. (Congressional Committee on Science, Space & Technology)
Complete timeline of the Science Committee’s oversight of NOAA’s 2015 climate change study.
I honestly have no skin in the game to prove or disprove ocean temperatures paused or not. What does concern me is that NOAA thinks it doesn't have to respond to Congressional inquires or even subpoena's. Government scientist saying their emails are not part of the official record is a clear indicator scientists have agendas other than the pursuit of the truth.
A more disturbing trend than data not being shared is results, papers, etc... being published and taken as fact without being duplicated. Peer review is one thing, having your experiment or analysis being successfully repeated by others is fundamental to the scientific method.
The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.
Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply.
During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistle-blowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda. (Congressional Committee on Science, Space & Technology)
Complete timeline of the Science Committee’s oversight of NOAA’s 2015 climate change study.
I honestly have no skin in the game to prove or disprove ocean temperatures paused or not. What does concern me is that NOAA thinks it doesn't have to respond to Congressional inquires or even subpoena's. Government scientist saying their emails are not part of the official record is a clear indicator scientists have agendas other than the pursuit of the truth.
A more disturbing trend than data not being shared is results, papers, etc... being published and taken as fact without being duplicated. Peer review is one thing, having your experiment or analysis being successfully repeated by others is fundamental to the scientific method.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Freedom of Conservative Speech
Recent protests and in some cases riots by left wing extremists and "Black Lives Matter" protesters that infringe on the free speech of others should not be tolerated let alone seemingly encouraged by institutions of higher learning.
Blocking people from attending planned events to the extent the police say it's dangerous for people to attend inhibits free speech.
Hold up signs. Yell as people enter. Attend and ask questions. Maybe even disrupt the speaker and be peacefully escorted out of the event. These are all constitutionally protected forms of free speech.
Preventing the event from happening by blocking the doors or rioting is NOT protected by the the constitution and frankly those that do this should be prosecuted.
Blocking people from attending planned events to the extent the police say it's dangerous for people to attend inhibits free speech.
Hold up signs. Yell as people enter. Attend and ask questions. Maybe even disrupt the speaker and be peacefully escorted out of the event. These are all constitutionally protected forms of free speech.
Preventing the event from happening by blocking the doors or rioting is NOT protected by the the constitution and frankly those that do this should be prosecuted.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Paul R. Ehrlich - So Exceptionally Wrong
During the turmoil of the 1960's if you wanted to make your point you had to ramp it up and if possible scare people. In 1962 Rachel Carson did this with "Silent Spring" and in 1968 Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich scared the living shit out of millions professing the end of humanity with "The Population Bomb" suggesting population controls ranging from rewarding couples not to have children to forced sterilization.
The truth, the facts, the reality is that developed countries population growth has slowed to a crawl if not gone negative and the developing world's circumstances have changed to an extent parents don't have to have double-digit children to cultivate and harvest crops or ensure the survival of their family name.
Without immigration, many developed countries show negative population growth and my wife is fond of pointing out that the Japanese, basically a closed immigration free society, would rather play video games than F%#k. Japan may be the poster child but they are far from the only country witnessing population collapse. As of March 2017 another 19 countries project negative population growth which has been welcomed by some but for those who understand demographics, including many governments, this is truly scary.
Only in academia could a man with ideas and predictions so absolutely wrong, continue to be embraced by the elite and barely hint at any admission of being wrong or guilty of things done because of his research. Being "wrong" has a price and nothing will bring back millions of people that were never conceived from government rules and pressure to countless of forced sterilizations.
Not only are Paul Ehrlich's ideas still being taught in one of our greatest state sponsored universities, he still serves as the President, Center for Conservation Biology, Professor of Population Studies in a building that no doubt will one day be named after him. Only in America do we continue to reward exceptional incompetence and fail to see the facts for what they are and continue to make political and social decisions based on flawed science.
The truth, the facts, the reality is that developed countries population growth has slowed to a crawl if not gone negative and the developing world's circumstances have changed to an extent parents don't have to have double-digit children to cultivate and harvest crops or ensure the survival of their family name.
Without immigration, many developed countries show negative population growth and my wife is fond of pointing out that the Japanese, basically a closed immigration free society, would rather play video games than F%#k. Japan may be the poster child but they are far from the only country witnessing population collapse. As of March 2017 another 19 countries project negative population growth which has been welcomed by some but for those who understand demographics, including many governments, this is truly scary.
Only in academia could a man with ideas and predictions so absolutely wrong, continue to be embraced by the elite and barely hint at any admission of being wrong or guilty of things done because of his research. Being "wrong" has a price and nothing will bring back millions of people that were never conceived from government rules and pressure to countless of forced sterilizations.
Not only are Paul Ehrlich's ideas still being taught in one of our greatest state sponsored universities, he still serves as the President, Center for Conservation Biology, Professor of Population Studies in a building that no doubt will one day be named after him. Only in America do we continue to reward exceptional incompetence and fail to see the facts for what they are and continue to make political and social decisions based on flawed science.
Monday, March 13, 2017
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.
Friday, March 10, 2017
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 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.
Monday, February 27, 2017
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.
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! |
Monday, January 9, 2017
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
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.
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.
Monday, November 14, 2016
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?
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?
Monday, November 7, 2016
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.
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.
Friday, October 14, 2016
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
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
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
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.
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.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
