Warren Buffett's Complaint About The New Tax Code

In his letter to his shareholders this February, Buffett began with a side note about how the new tax code affects Berkshire Hathaway's profit and how Berkshire Hathaway presents its financial standing. First he says that BH made $29 billion, not from what they did, but what Congress did.

Second, he thinks it distorts things and his company will strive to provide information that makes it easier for people to get a more accurate picture.  This came out in late February, but I only just became aware of it.  In his own words:

Berkshire’s gain in net worth during 2017 was $65.3 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 23%. Over the last 53 years (that is, since present management took over), per- share book value has grown from $19 to $211,750, a rate of 19.1% compounded annually.*
The format of that opening paragraph has been standard for 30 years. But 2017 was far from standard: A large portion of our gain did not come from anything we accomplished at Berkshire.
The $65 billion gain is nonetheless real – rest assured of that. But only $36 billion came from Berkshire’s operations. The remaining $29 billion was delivered to us in December when Congress rewrote the U.S. Tax Code. (Details of Berkshire’s tax-related gain appear on page K-32 and pages K-89 – K-90.)
After stating those fiscal facts, I would prefer to turn immediately to discussing Berkshire’s operations. But, in still another interruption, I must first tell you about a new accounting rule – a generally accepted accounting principle (GAAP) – that in future quarterly and annual reports will severely distort Berkshire’s net income figures and very often mislead commentators and investors.
The new rule says that the net change in unrealized investment gains and losses in stocks we hold must be included in all net income figures we report to you. That requirement will produce some truly wild and capricious swings in our GAAP bottom-line. Berkshire owns $170 billion of marketable stocks (not including our shares of Kraft Heinz), and the value of these holdings can easily swing by $10 billion or more within a quarterly reporting period. Including gyrations of that magnitude in reported net income will swamp the truly important numbers that describe our operating performance. For analytical purposes, Berkshire’s “bottom-line” will be useless.
The new rule compounds the communication problems we have long had in dealing with the realized gains (or losses) that accounting rules compel us to include in our net income. In past quarterly and annual press releases, we have regularly warned you not to pay attention to these realized gains, because they – just like our unrealized gains – fluctuate randomly.
That’s largely because we sell securities when that seems the intelligent thing to do, not because we are trying to influence earnings in any way. As a result, we sometimes have reported substantial realized gains for a period when our portfolio, overall, performed poorly (or the converse).
*All per-share figures used in this report apply to Berkshire’s A shares. Figures for the B shares are 1/1500th of those shown for the A shares.
3
With the new rule about unrealized gains exacerbating the distortion caused by the existing rules applying to realized gains, we will take pains every quarter to explain the adjustments you need in order to make sense of our numbers. But televised commentary on earnings releases is often instantaneous with their receipt, and newspaper headlines almost always focus on the year-over-year change in GAAP net income. Consequently, media reports sometimes highlight figures that unnecessarily frighten or encourage many readers or viewers.
We will attempt to alleviate this problem by continuing our practice of publishing financial reports late on Friday, well after the markets close, or early on Saturday morning. That will allow you maximum time for analysis and give investment professionals the opportunity to deliver informed commentary before markets open on Monday. Nevertheless, I expect considerable confusion among shareholders for whom accounting is a foreign language.
At Berkshire what counts most are increases in our normalized per-share earning power. That metric is what Charlie Munger, my long-time partner, and I focus on – and we hope that you do, too. Our scorecard for 2017 follows.

I get the general drift of this, though this is not an area have any particular expertise.  What I'm most interested in is why the new tax bill has changed the reporting process and who it hurts and who it harms.  But as I searched for people commenting on Buffett's letter, I haven't been able to find answers to my questions.

Here's one that gets into things a little deeper:

Tax Bill's Effect On Reported Earnings - How Big A Deal? 

My gut tells me that there will be plenty of surprises that pop up over the year.  Little gifts to individual corporations that were well disguised - say with qualifications for a benefit that basically are aimed at one company (though there may be others like it who will also get benefits.) And there will be lots of unintended consequences that no one foresaw because of the speed with which this bill was passed.

Days Of Great Beauty

April gives Anchorage lots of sunshine and the south facing snow is going fast.  The sidewalk/bikepaths are clearing - many just wet now as snow melts across the during the day.  But parts of Anchorage still have lots of snow.  Well, it was pretty crusty at Campbell Airstrip where my granddaughter went X-country skiing for the first time.  I'd managed to borrow some little skis that attached to any snow boots.  This is her first trip to Anchorage when there's still a lot of snow.  

We walked over the bridge and she got into her skis where the tracks are still in the snow.  And then she just took off. One ski forward, then the next.  Eventually I told her to try to slide a bit and so she went faster.  

It was about 40 minutes of pushing one ski forward then the other.  She had a great time.  Got into a good rhythm and the few times she fell, she laughed - even though the packed snow on the ground is hard.

We had the trail to ourselves a lot of the time, but there were other skiers, people on fat tire bikes, walkers, and runners, some with their dogs.  

It was stunningly beautiful.  It was comfortably warm - the trees kept the wind above us.  

This morning we filled in my ballot for tomorrow's mail-in election.  We stopped by the voting box behind the UAA sport center and stuck the ballot in on the way to skiing.  

Hope You Had a Good April Fool's Day

And a good Easter if you celebrate that.

The US condition makes it difficult to create an April Fool's post that wouldn't seem very plausible to many.  Our president's acts would have qualified as April Fool's jokes in any prior presidency.

Today it's more important to practice kindness.

With those people who engage me in conversation, I try to assume I'm talking to a genius, a future Nobel Prize winner, or a great musician, a dedicated teacher.  I try to believe they may actually be those things.

It's hard to pull that off and I fail regularly.  But I ask people with whom I disagree, why they believe what they believe.  What studies have they undertaken?  What books and articles have they read so I can learn the facts that underlie their argument.  And if they have none to offer, I ask them why it's important for them to believe it.

It's not something I do every day - I don't get into those situations every day.  And it's much easier to react poorly.  And acting poorly isn't reserved for any political persuasion.  I try to ignore physical characteristics.  I try to assume a person's body - whether attractive or unattractive to me - is just a costume that does not reflect the human being wearing it.  And if the person inside isn't very attractive either, I get curious how the once perfectly beautiful little child came to become the disagreeable person talking to me?  Who or what blocked that child's path and warped their humanity?  Might they talk to me about it?  Might that hep or not?

I can't keep this up all the time, but that's my goal.

And humor amongst intimates is a great way to get release.  Jokes that take on the powerful are probably the most permissible.  But jokes at other people's expense are always a risky strategy, particularly with people who have a shaky self image.  Jokes at one's own expense are the most socially acceptable, but not if they hurt the jokester.

Maybe you can guess that my granddaughter and daughter got to town very early this morning and they make me a better person.  We played in the snow.  It turns out our backyard snow has a hard crust on it that makes it great for sliding down.  This snow is very different from the very occasional snowfall she gets at home, that melts in a few days.   I got to hook up the trailer bike to mine and we pedaled to the playground and back.  The world is such a big adventure for my sweetie.  I wish you all a good month.  May you smile more, yet keep resisting evil or being evil.

Images Of Ice

Here are some pictures of the ice formed this afternoon in the gutter along the street.  I tried to find some articles that clearly explained how ice forms.  I didn't find any so I'll offer a few quotes between the pictures.  

FromWikipedia:

"An unusual property of ice frozen at atmospheric pressure is that the solid is approximately 8.3% less dense than liquid water. The density of ice is 0.9167 g/cm3 at 0 °C,[6] whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm3 at the same temperature. Liquid water is densest, essentially 1.00 g/cm3, at 4 °C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals[7] of ice as the freezing point is reached. This is due to hydrogen bonding dominating the intermolecular forces, which results in a packing of molecules less compact in the solid. Density of ice increases slightly with decreasing temperature and has a value of 0.9340 g/cm3 at −180 °C (93 K).[8]"

"Ih = Normal hexagonal crystalline ice. Virtually all ice in the biosphere is ice Ih, with the exception only of a small amount of ice Ic."

From Science Learning Lab:

"Molecules are constantly moving because they have energy. In a liquid form, water molecules have more energy than in a solid – they move around quickly, essentially bouncing off of one another. As the liquid cools down, the amount of potential energy is reduced and the molecules start to move slower. When the water temperature reaches around 0°C, the molecules stick together and form a solid – ice. Even in this solid stage, the molecules are still moving – we just can’t see it."

From NYU:

"In ice Ih, each water forms four hydrogen bonds with O---O distances of 2.76 Angstroms to the nearest oxygen neighbor. The O-O-O angles are 109 degrees, typical of a tetrahedrally coordinated lattice structure. The density of ice Ih is 0.931 gm/cubic cm. This compares with a density of 1.00 gm/cubic cm. for water.
There are eleven different forms of crystalline ice that are know. The hexaganol form known as ice Ih is the only one that is found naturally. The lattice structure of ice 1h is shown here."

What Is The Difference Between Kosher for Passover and Regular Kosher Matzah? -The Human Capacity To Disagree

Over the years philosophers, psychologists, and other observers of the human condition have identified what they thought made humans distinct from other species.  A BBC exploration of that question begins with with Aristotle:

 We are "rational animals" pursuing knowledge for its own sake. We live by art and reasoning, he wrote. 

I'm not going to claim that disagreement makes us unique, but it sure seems be be common.  I probably don't have to give you any examples.  You probably can come up with some that occurred in the last hour.

But since tonight begins Passover, here's an example that makes my point.  Not just that people disagree over things that clearly have consequences (who to vote for, what to eat for dinner), but also things that seem to be disagreement for disagreement's sake.

Since our daughter and granddaughter are visiting next week, and since it's Passover, we can't make a bread together.  So I thought we could make matzah instead.  Matzah boxes are marked
"Kosher - not for Passover"  and "Kosher for Passover."

So I wanted to know what the difference was.  It's mostly about how carefully the wheat is treated from the time it is ground to flour.

On keeping Passover Matzah kosher:

"Most authorities maintain that it is sufficient to guard the wheat from the time it is ground, in order to use it to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah. Some authorities dispute this, however, and maintain that the wheat must be guarded from the time that it is harvested." 

In my role as a mediator at times, I came to learn that such disagreements - that seem to be about differences that don't really make a difference - are based on unspoken assumptions or issues that are the real problem.  It's not the purity of the grain, so to speak, but some other value it represents.

Perhaps it's just about who is right or who has the power to make the decision.  Or it could be that the stricter interpretation reflects a generally greater concern for detail by that position's advocate.

I would argue that the Jews in Egypt who first baked the unleavened bread before their exodus from Egypt, did so because they didn't have time to wait for bread to rise a few times before they had to leave.  And I'm sure they didn't use special flour that had been carefully guarded.

The use of the matzah today is symbolic.  It's to remind Jews of the suffering of their ancestors and to remind them that they too were strangers in a strange land and had to flee.  And thus Jews should remember to help others today who have to flee their homelands.  So whether we use extra special wheat to make matzah probably really makes no difference.  No one eating matzah can tell the difference.  It's the symbol that matters.  And if Jews eat made from the most vigorously guarded wheat, but forget how to apply the lessons of the story to those suffering a similar fate today, they've gotten so tied up in the rules, they've missed the whole point.


For those who are unfamiliar with the Kosher labels of food packaging, here's a website that looks at the Kosher labels and the labeling authorities.

If Legislative Coalitions Require Members To Vote For The Budget In Exchange For Benefits, Is That Bribery?

Alaska state representative  David Eastman from the Mat-Su, in a commentary in today's newspaper, raises an interesting question.  He describes when legislators join the Republican controlled 'fraternity' (the majority caucus) in Juneau, they get a bunch of perks - bigger office, more staff, prime committee membership and possible committee chairs, access to better state travel money and

 "you are invited to be 'at the table' at those closed-door meetings that never take place (at least officially.)"

But all those things don't come without a string attached.

"The cost for joining the fraternity is simple: a promise to vote with the fraternity when called upon to do so, and to approve the state budget endorsed by the fraternity — no matter what's in it."

 So, a group of legislators that forms a majority caucus, sets up rules that give benefits to legislators in exchange for votes.  That's what Eastman is complaining about.

If I gave a legislator $500 for a plane trip on the condition that he vote a certain way on a particular bill, that would be clearly illegal.

Here's from the Alaska Statutes:

"Alaska Statutes.
Title 11. Criminal Law
Chapter 56. Offenses Against Public Administration
Section 100. Bribery.
previous: Chapter 56. Offenses Against Public Administration
next: Section 110. Receiving a Bribe.
AS 11.56.100. Bribery.
(a) A person commits the crime of bribery if the person confers, offers to confer, or agrees to confer a benefit upon a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise of official discretion.
(b) In a prosecution under this section, it is not a defense that the person sought to be influenced was not qualified to act in the desired way, whether because that person had not assumed office, lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.
(c) Bribery is a class B felony."  [emphasis added]

Clearly, when someone joins a Republican majority coalition, as Easton has described it, that coalition "confers, offers to confer, or agrees to confer a benefit upon a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise of official discretion."


The benefits are all those things Easton describes:

• larger office
• better committee assignments including chairs
• more staff
• better travel benefits
• and access to private meetings where key decisions are made

In exchange, the legislator must vote as the coalition dictates on key bills including the budget.  As he describes it, their exercise of official discretion is removed.


I recall when  Rep. Lora Reinbold was kicked out of the Republican coalition in 2015, she was stripped of her committee assignments and her office etc.  She was kicked out because she didn't vote for the budget the coalition had put together.  I wrote a long post then (March 30, 2015) exploring the logic and reasoning and ethics of such rules.  But I didn't talk about it being a form of bribery.  But the way Easton talks about, it certainly seems to fit.


Here's a bit of what I wrote then.  The first quote confirms Easton's allegation.

"ADN Saturday March 28, 2015:

“All I can say is, she knew what she was doing, she knew what the rules were, and chose to go the way she did. There are consequences,” [House Speaker Mike Chenault] said."

Then I called my legislator's office and was told that wasn't how the Minority (Democratic) caucus worked.  They had no rules.  He suggested I call someone from the Majority (Republican) caucus.

"I check with speaker Chenault's office. 
A male staffer answered.  I explained my query and asked where I could get a copy of the rules.   
They're unwritten rules, he told me, that the caucus has.  There is no written set of rules.  They're understood.  The main one is to vote for the budget.  If you don't, things can happen.   I asked how anyone finds out about the rules?   They're told in the caucus he said."

The 2015 post got into questions about written and unwritten rules.  I wondered whether the fact that rules were unwritten suggested they knew there was something shady about them.  But on further reflection, spurred on by Rep. Eastman, I think it's a pretty clear case of bribery.

Now, I'm also sure that the Republicans have somewhere exempted internal wrangling from being interpreted as bribery.  And it's clear that log-rolling and 'if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" are long accepted practices in legislatures.  

Log-rolling is part of the process of getting work done in legislative bodies made up of many individuals with different agendas.  It's how you compromise.  The legislator may get a bill he badly wants passed, but he's not getting personal benefits.  But what Eastman so clearly describes is an attempt by party leaders to force their members to bow to their will in exchange for a bunch of benefits.

I'll try to check on if and where this practice is exempted from the Statute on bribery.  If I find out, I'll post again with some options for how one could end the exemptions.  If I can't find such exemptions, I think it would be time to prosecute the leaders of the Republican coalitions for bribery.

Emerging As The Snow Retreats [Updated}

We have snow and ice and various combinations of snow packed denser from the weight of more snow.  But the sun and wind are busy melting and evaporating the snow and ice.  My daily exercise has been to chop the ice that formed on the sidewalk and street and to liberate the gutter so the melt water can make a straight path to the sewer and not melt each day and freeze again each night in the street.

Here are some pictures as the disappearing ice and snow reveal what they've been hiding during the winter.

Here's part of the rock flower bed border poking out today.

Under the trees the snow wasn't so deep and so that ground makes an early appearance.  Some of the leaves fell after the first snow falls and have melted their own shapes into the older snow.

And here's some phlox poking out, getting ready to display their tiny pink blossoms near the beginning of the parade of flowers starting in May.

I thought, wow, a moose was just by and I missed it.  But there were no holes in the snow that moose leave, so this must have been left here many snows ago, and buried until yesterday.

[UPDATE March 28, 2018 - What the snow giveth, it can take away again.  I meant to note in this post yesterday that it's still March and there tends to be a snow or two in April still, even May.  And last night it snowed ever so slightly.  But enough to cover up the moose poop:

But the sun's out again and most of last night's snow is gone already.  This time of year we have lots of light and the knowledge things will turn green again soon.]

And the magpies have also been eager to poke around in the newly revealed leaves.  This is a great time of year as the (northern) earth shrugs off its coat and all the life that's been hibernating underneath begins to awaken.

Afternoon Trip To Alaska

I picked up my car Friday from the repair place, but they hadn't quite figured out the problem, but it did need to be driven, so if I took it for the weekend and drove it, that would help them.  I'd taken it in Wednesday evening and they were supposed to fix it Thursday. The key issue was that the yellow trouble light was on.  But Thursday is when the truck hit the bridge near Eagle River and shut down the Glenn Highway.  And the mechanic assigned to my car was stuck in the giant traffic jam.  Or so they told me.  No problem, I don't use the car much anyway.

An old gag about Anchorage is that "it's alone about 20 minutes from Alaska."  So, since the car needed to be driven, I wanted to head down the Seward Highway, maybe even take a short hike if the snow and ice weren't too bad.

The trail turned out to be mostly ice at the steepest part - just past the bridge - and even though we had grippers and poles, we decided it wasn't worth it.  Our grippers work fine on flat ground, but not up a steep incline.  But here are some pictures.



Turnagain Arm from McHugh Creek.














Here's a closer picture of the ice floating on the tide.

Here's McHugh Creek from the bridge just before the icy incline.  



















And here are those icicles closer up.





















Another part of the creek.












And the moon was out too.



Oh yeah, the yellow trouble light went back on in the van.  Who knows when they're going to figure out what's setting it off.

Senator Dan Sullivan On The Checks That Exist On Trump's Possible Firing of Mueller

Just seven days ago I wrote here that people should contact their Congress members and Senators to let them know they should NOT let Trump get away with firing Mueller.  I also sent emails to my representative and senators.

Only four days later I got a reply from Senator Dan Sullivan.  While he doesn't make any commitments, it looks like his staff was prepared on this one.  So I think it's only fair to post his response.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding S.1741, the Special Counsel Integrity Act. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and welcome the opportunity to respond."

I know this is a form letter from the first line, because I didn't mention S.1741.  I just urged him to make sure  1) Trump knows that Sen. Sullivan supports the Mueller investigation and  2) should Mueller get fired that Sullivan would work to stop Trump.  I didn't offer how, I figured he knew those details better than I did, and he did.

On August 3, 2017, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced S.1741 to formally establish a process by which the special counsel can challenge their removal. This legislation would allow a special counsel to challenge their removal before a panel of three federal court judges whose decision could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Since President Donald Trump assumed office on January 20, 2017, several news outlets have published allegations that staffers for President Trump had contact with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign. Following these allegations, on May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller as special counsel. The special counsel is authorized to investigate any possible coordination between the Russian government and the campaign of President Donald Trump, as well as any other matters that arose from this investigation.  

The President does not have the authority to remove Robert Mueller as special counsel; his removal would require the approval of Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. The special counsel can only be fired for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of DOJ policies. Additionally, the special counsel must be notified in writing as to the reason for their dismissal.  [emphasis added]

We need to continue the comprehensive investigations being conducted by both the DOJ, FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election. As a firm advocate for maintaining proper checks and balances in our government, I will continue to work with and at the same time provide necessary oversight regarding the President’s nominees to ensure that all appointees follow the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, and that foreign governments do not succeed in their efforts to undermine trust in the U.S. Government—a model of freedom that stands in stark contrast to Russia’s authoritarian regime. [emphasis added, and I'd note that 'both' usually refers to two things not three.]

S.1741 has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where it awaits action. While I am not a member of this Committee, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind as it is discussed in the Senate. 

Thank you again for contacting me on this issue. If you have any more questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or my staff. My office can be reached at 202-224-3004, or online at www.sullivan.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Dan Sullivan
United States Senator 

So here is the official summary of S.1741:

Special Counsel Integrity Act
This bill sets forth requirements and limitations with respect to the discipline or removal from office of a special counsel appointed under Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations.
Specifically, a special counsel may be disciplined or removed only by the personal action of an Attorney General who has been confirmed by the Senate. If the Attorney General is recused from the matter, then a special counsel may be disciplined or removed by the most senior DOJ official who has been confirmed by the Senate and is not recused from the matter.
A special counsel: (1) may only be removed for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause, including violation of DOJ policies; (2) must be informed in writing of the specific reason for the removal; and (3) may file an action for judicial review of the removal.

It was introduced, as the letter says, on August 3, 2017 by Senator Them Tillis (R-NC) and referred to the Judiciary Committee.  You have to dig around a bit to find out that Sen. Christopher Coons (D - Del) is the co-sponsor.   It sat there until September 26, where a hearing was held.

That's all that Congress.com tells us.  Presumably it's been sleeping in that committee ever since, so my Senator says it's out of his hands.

I appreciate that Sen. Sullivan got back to me quickly and gave me some substantive information, but I don't seem much enthusiasm on his part for doing anything.  Though he did vote No on the budget just about the same time. And he does want the Mueller investigation to continue.  What exactly will he do to make sure that happens?



Here's what Vox said about this bill and another similar one back in October and it seems to apply to Sullivan's response:

"Senate Republicans have been coy about whether they would move to insulate Mueller if Trump follows the conservative calls to dismiss the special counsel’s investigation.
But if they’re interested in taking action, they have options already on the table."

If you poke around long enough you start to get stuff.  Here's part of what CT Mirror said on March 19, 2018:

"After Mueller was appointed nearly a year ago to head the investigation into possible ties between the Trump administration and Russia, senators, including Richard Blumenthal, introduced two bipartisan bills last year aimed at protecting a special counsel from political pressure from the White House
The “Special Counsel Integrity Act,” introduced by Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, would allow a special counsel to be fired only for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause, including violation of Justice Department policies.
The “Special Counsel Independence Protection Act,” introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; and Blumenthal would require a federal judge to first sign off on any action to discipline or fire a special counsel.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in September on the two bills, but the legislation has not moved since then. Similar legislation introduced in the U.S. House is also stalled.
When the Senate returns on Tuesday, a push to move the bills out of committee onto the Senate floor is expected."

Let's see if  either of these bills get any new co-sponsors, especially now that Bolton is officially in the administration.

I Have A Potential Shooter/Terrorist/Bomber To Report . . .

After every shooting and bombing, well, any event where one 'mentally ill' person manages to kill three or more people, we hear the refrain "everyone should have seen the signs before it came to this.  It's a failure of the system.  Guns aren't the problem, it's mental illness."

Well I'd like to report a guy who thinks he's president of the United States, which he believes, allows him to do whatever he wants.  He hangs out with some truly strange people who urge him to do really bizarre stuff,  but they tend not to stay for long.  If they disagree with him on anything, he kicks them out.

He tweets threatening messages to people who disagree with him, whether they are members of Congress, judges, journalists, FBI, football players, former sex partners,  ordinary citizens, or leaders of other countries.

And for him the truth is whatever he says it is at any given moment.

He has a suitcase, I'm told with which he can blow up the world.  It has instructions on how to set off nuclear weapons. (One positive is that he doesn't like getting instructions from anyone.)  He's got this huge cache of weapons and he's recently gotten approval for an additional nearly $700 billion in weapons and other war supplies.  I think there should be a two year waiting period before he gets any of that.

I doubt there is any other single individual with more resources to do harm to the world, whether though actual arms and weapons or through destruction of the environment, civilization and community, and the good will that humans have been able to develop over the years.  And his behavior is erratic and unpredictable.  (I don't even think that's completely true - his specific actions may be, but the underlying motivation seems to be satisfying his own need for the moment.).  He's unpredictable and decidedly misogynist.

So rather than be sorry, I think it's my duty as an American citizen and as a human being to report him.  He needs serious psychological review.  I

f Republicans in Congress are serious about stopping violence through catching the mentally ill who show signs they might commit acts of violence, it's time to review this man's stability, particularly given the stash of weapons he's collecting.

I predict a serious act of violence if he is allowed continued free reign (pun intended.)  And then everyone left will be wringing their hands either saying, "who could have known" or "I always thought . . ."