We will increase taxes on oil companies to lower fuel costs.

On Medical Costs

We will decrease choice and competition to decrease health care costs.

On Education

We will increase spending and decrease choice to improve our education system.

On Big Business

We will penalize the corporations to create new jobs.

On Victimhood

We will create more victims to increase our constituency.

Now all I hear coming out of the Democratic primary is how each candidate is going to fight the special interests. Certainly they are not talking about the teacher’s union. My question to the Democrats is why do you harp on the evil special interests while simultaneously making it easier for them to consolidate influence by centralizing power at the federal level? 

Ø       Would special interest groups have as much clout if the New Deal, the Great Society, and No Child Left Behind (I know this was ushered in by a Republican) programs were never enacted?

Ø       Would special interests have the same clout if federalism was strictly followed and each State and sub-government retained the sovereignty that was intended in the US Constitution?

In my humble opinion, centralizing government power also centralizes lobbyist power leading to more opportunities for corruption. Decentralized power and the retention of sovereignty at the local level provides an atmosphere for a federal congressman to listen to a special request and respond that the request is outside their scope of power rather than saying I can cure all your ills. 

According to a report that was created for Congress, ”Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: A Brief History”, federal grants, before the second half of the 19th century, were largely grants for land, canals, and forts. It facilitated the westward migration of settlers.  The federal government played almost no role in providing social service grants. Below is an excerpt from the report identifying Franklin Pierce's reasoning for this lack of social spending:

"President Franklin Pierce (1853-1857) vetoed an 1854 act, supported by reformer Dorothea Dix, to allocate funds to states to help the indigent insane. Pierce contended that if:"

“Congress is to make provision for [paupers], the fountains of charity will be dried up at home, and the several States, instead of bestowing their own means on the social wants of their people ... [will] become humble suppliants (beggars) for the bounty of the Federal Government, reversing their true relation to this Union.”

Pierce’s comments should be considered prophetic.

http://founders.blogtownhall.com/2007/10/02/21st_century_federalism3.thtml

I hope 'on the fencers' had a chance to watch the GOP debate last night on CNN.  Mike Huckabee was outstanding in his limited time in the spotlight and clearly outlined why he is most suited to take on the office of the President.  His executive experience, clear understanding of federalism and his ability to communicate are unsurpassed by the other candidates.  (I am not discounting Ron Paul's strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution; I am talking the entire package) 

Super Tuesday is nearly upon us and Republican primary voters need to examine their hearts and minds before casting their vote.  A vote for Huckabee is not a wasted vote.  Stand strong to your convictions and we will see what happens.  The worst thing that happens is that McCain or Romney win the nomination, the best thing that could happen is the end of business as usual and a new beginning. It would also lead to several months of interesting listening for conservative radio audiences.

Now I thought I was a conservative, but after listening to talk radio over the last several months, I don't know if I fit the bill.  I guess I am a donkey in elephant’s clothes because I strongly support:

o       The tenets of federalism (divisions of sovereignty between a central government and sub-units [States and local governments]).

o       Strict adherence to the Bill of Rights. (even the 9th and 10th Amendments that are largely ignored).

o       The principles related to supply-side economics and the removing of barriers to production.  This includes the retention of heavy manufacturing in the USA by creating an environment where US companies can be competitive with foreign competitors.

o       The Military for all it does and what it stands for.  (In a vacuum, I differ from the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy.  I do not feel that a democratically elected regime is necessarily more peaceful and I lean toward a non-interventionist foreign policy.  However, I support President Bush's response to the attacks of 9/11 and understand that you cannot always sit on the sidelines.)

o       Free market solutions to health care.

o       Conservation and the importance of energy independence.

o       The Presidential line item veto.  When an omnibus bill filled with pork is submitted to the President, it is a waste of time and money for the President to veto the entire bill due to disagreements with specific line items.  Let the President veto specific projects and send them back to Congress for the opportunity to over-ride while the necessary portions of the bill are signed into law.

o       Family values and the promotion of two parent households.

o       Mike Huckabee for President.

I’ll do to your taxes what I helped do to medical malpractice insurance costs!

Edwards ‘08

It takes a village to raise a family……..a highly regulated and bureaucratic village.

Clinton(s) ‘08

I’m the guy that laid you off.  You so want to be me.

Romney ‘08

Oprah Winfrey: Secretary of Defense!

Obama ‘08

The Constitution does not permit campaign slogans.

Paul ‘08

In Florida, there are 3 certainties: death, taxes, and Rudy fighting to repeal death taxes.

Giuliani ‘08

I’ll get my campaign straightened out in post-production.

Thompson ‘08

Washington is broke, you got some change?  Seriously, do you have any money for a campaign donation?

Huckabee ‘08

Yeah, I am that guy from ‘Wedding Crashers’. 

McCain ‘08

H.R.1359 - Enumerated Powers Act

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

3/6/2007--Introduced.

“Enumerated Powers Act - Requires each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. Declares that failure to comply with this requirement shall give rise to a more...point of order in either chamber of Congress.”

Now that is a novel idea; create a law that requires Congress to identify what authority they have in proposing a bill by adding a concise statement to their bill.  It is too bad that this is even required considering Congressmen take an oath to uphold the Constitution.  However, due to the hijacking of the Constitution and an elitist interpretation that it is a living document, HR 1359 is an outstanding solution.  It would at least open up each measure for debate on each bill’s constitutionality. 

I have written my Senators and Congressman in support of this measure.  As my elected representatives, I expect them to act within the bounds of the US Constitution.  I have read some of the convoluted bills that come out of Congress and I am sure they can add a couple more sentences.  It is time for them to familiarize themselves with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Below are the Sponsor and Co-Sponsors of this bill.  I applaud the Democratic Congressman, Timothy Bishop, for signing on:

Sponsor

Rep. John Shadegg [R, AZ-3]

Co-Sponsors

Rep. W. Todd Akin [R, MO-2]

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6]

Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]

Rep. Rob Bishop [R, UT-1]

Rep. John Boozman [R, AR-3]

Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5]

Rep. K. Michael Conaway [R, TX-11]

Rep. David Davis [R, TN-1]

Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2]

Rep. Tom Feeney [R, FL-24]

Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6]

Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5]

Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]

Rep. E. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]

Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11]

Rep. Louis Gohmert [R, TX-1]

Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6]

Rep. Dean Heller [R, NV-2]

Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2]

Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5]

Rep. Kenny Marchant [R, TX-24]

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11]

Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1]

Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9]

Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]

Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2]

Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6]

Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7]

Rep. David Weldon [R, FL-15]

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3]

Is warming for real? Ask Californians in fiery grip
By FROMA HARROP
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
It has long been sage policy to ignore the crank denials around global warming. But now and then you have a weather-related disaster like the fires devouring big chunks of Southern California — and you wonder about the extent to which the blockheads have slowed progress in dealing with the problem.

to read more of Ms. Harrop's editorial: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5249730.html

This is my response to Froma Harrop's editorial regarding the late reaction to global warming. 

I believe the debate is not over on the causes of global warming.  Ms. Harrop uses the typical bullying tactic of labeling people that are skeptical of human caused global warming as “deniers”, which is to invoke the vision of the despicable Holocaust deniers.  Scientific hypotheses are meant to be tested and retested by multiple scientists.  If we are to end the debate, what is the use of the Scientific Method?  We might as well surrender all sovereignty to the government because they know what is best for us.

She of course paints a picture of “deniers” by taking quotes from someone on the fringes (Pat Buchanan) and a “meteorologist” that has not published his findings in a journal.  What she fails to mention is that there are a large number of rational scientists that are skeptical of human caused global warming or the extent to which humans cause global warming.  I don’t trust Wikipedia as a primary source, but a list of scientists with links to their positions can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

There are also many private citizens that either believe in or are open to human caused global warming, but believe that government and globalization are not the solution to the problem.  For example, individuals can take responsibility for reducing their carbon footprint and create larger markets for environmentally friendly corporations through the laws of supply and demand.  My fear is that government, in its infinite wisdom, will go to the extreme and I will have to make monthly trips to a local emissions testing facility, be subjected to price controls and strict rationing, and have the tax code used to punish rather than using tax breaks to promote breakthroughs. (See the recent SCHIP proposal of taxing smokers that are generally low income earners to pay for medical insurance for low income earners’ children.)

It is important to keep an open mind.  The debate was once over that the Earth was the center of the universe. 

I have a few questions.  Why can’t someone with traditional insurance open up a Health Savings Account to allow him to save money on a tax-free basis for future medical expenses?  Why am I confined to the choice of a Flexible Spending Account where I lose my contributions at the end of the year if I don’t use them?  If I leave my employer, I leave my Flexible Spending Account. 

If I had a Health Savings Account, I would own it no matter where I was employed.  Contributions would roll over year to year and I could potentially save a large sum of money for medical expenses in my later years.  However, I cannot enroll in the program with traditional medical insurance. 

Now if I was promoting personal responsibility, I would allow Health Savings Accounts, similar to the concept of the 401k, where pre-tax employee dollars could be invested and used for qualified medical expenses no matter what insurance you had.  I would eliminate the Flexible Spending Account which penalizes you for setting aside too much money and ties you to your employer.  Why can’t there be a Health Savings Account that is not dependent on a certain type of insurance and allows for people to own an account that has tax benefits for qualified medical expenses?  Why do many of today’s policies tie us to our employers and decrease many people’s entrepreneurial drive?

What is a Flexible Spending Account?

A Flexible Spending Account (FSA) is a tax-favored program offered by employers that allows their employees to pay for eligible out-of-pocket health care and dependent care expenses with pre-tax dollars. By using pre-tax dollars to pay for eligible health care and dependent care expenses, an FSA gives you an immediate discount on these expenses that equals the taxes you would otherwise pay on that money.

In other words, with an FSA, you can both reduce your taxes and get more for your money by saving from 20% to more than 40% you would normally pay for out-of-pocket health care and dependent care expenses with after-tax (as opposed to taxed) dollars.

https://www.fsafeds.com/fsafeds/summaryofbenefits.asp#WhatIsFSA

What is a Health Savings Account (“HSA”)?
A Health Savings Account is an alternative to traditional health insurance; it is a savings product that offers a different way for consumers to pay for their health care. HSAs enable you to pay for current health expenses and save for future qualified medical and retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis.

You must be covered by a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) to be able to take advantage of HSAs. An HDHP generally costs less than what traditional health care coverage costs, so the money that you save on insurance can therefore be put into the Health Savings Account.

You own and you control the money in your HSA. Decisions on how to spend the money are made by  you without relying on a third party or a health insurer. You will also decide what types of investments to make with the money in the account in order to make it grow.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/public-affairs/hsa/faq_basics.shtml#hsa1

It is time for the federal government to step up and pursue a strategy that facilitates the return of the USA to manufacturing superpower status.  There is an unfair cost advantage for producing in foreign markets and importing to the US versus producing at home.  The reasons are simple.  It costs more in corporate taxes, regulations, and labor to produce in the US. 

Consumers have 2 choices, buy less expensive items imported from abroad or pay more for items made in the USA.  What is the government going to do to reduce our dependence on foreign nations for fuel, weapons, steel, and even toys?  (Is China trying to kill us slowly with lead toys?  Make sure you buy US EE bonds this Christmas for the kids.  They are lead free!)  Much of the talk for regaining a competitive advantage for US products is to enforce tariffs on imports and other protectionist policies.  I do not oppose a limited use of protectionist policies against nations that do not promote free and fair trade, but these policies are not the answer.  They only lead to price increases and economic warfare. 

Why not use such tactics as reducing regulations and eliminating corporate taxes to prime the US production pump?  Following the strategy of keeping it simple, I am a strong supporter of the Fair Tax plan.  This plan eliminates the corporate income and payroll taxes (among other taxes, read more at http://www.fairtax.org). 

Per the Fair tax plan by eliminating corporate taxes:

       “The 17 percent competitive advantage, on average, of foreign producers is eliminated, immediately boosting U.S. competitiveness overseas. American companies doing business internationally are able to sell their goods at lower prices but at similar margins, and this brings jobs to America.” 

       “Imports and domestic production are on a level playing field. Exported goods are not subject to the FairTax, since they are not consumed in the U.S.; but imported goods sold in the U.S. are subject to the FairTax because these products are consumed domestically.”

       By reducing the costs (payroll taxes and compliance costs) for workers, US companies would be more inclined to create more domestic jobs.

Everyone thinks that corporations pay income taxes out of their own pockets.  They are an easy target for politicians to sell their social programs.  “Just tax the evil corporations to pay for universal health care.”  However, corporations are made up of groups of people whose main goal is to increase stakeholder value.  These higher taxes are paid by charging higher prices, returning lower rates of returns, and/or paying lower wages.  The higher taxes are also avoided by moving operations to a foreign nation. 

Regulations are a little trickier to reduce.  We do not want a situation where our produce is grown in sewer water and our toys are coated with lead paint.  However, there are regulations that are obsolete or unrelated to safety that can be eliminated to reduce the costs of production. 

According to a report sponsored by the United States Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy (SBA’s Office of Advocacy), the annual cost of all federal regulations is estimated to be $843 billion.  The SBA’s report shows that the annual cost of all federal regulations is, on a per employee basis, $6,975 for firms with fewer than 20 employees–nearly 60% higher than the $4,463 for companies with 500 or more employees. http://www.uschamber.com/issues/testimony/2005/050428regulatoryburden.htm

Congress needs to quit spending its time conducting investigations and debating issues outside its realm of responsibility and start concentrating on protecting its citizens by putting us in a position to be self sufficient.  Quit creating an atmosphere that promotes the exportation of jobs and the importation of steel.

The US became a super-power because of our ability to out-produce other nations.  Now we outsource or sell our key industries to foreign interests.   Here are some statistics from an article by Thomas Heffner on the Economy in Crisis website (http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/1119)

       Production: Japan was the largest producer of steel in 2005 behind only China. Japan outproduced the US by 22 million tons. Furthermore, at least 20% of the domestic US steel industry is foreign owned according to the IRS and we import nearly 30% of the steel that we consume. Nearly none of Japan’s key industries are foreign owned.

       Interest Expense: The US public debt is almost 50% financed by other countries whereas Japan’s public debt is nearly 100% financed by its own citizens. Japan’s government borrows money at rates as low as 0.6% percent (sixth tenths of one percent) whereas the US government short-term rate is almost 8 times higher.  The US government paid out over $405 billion to pay interest alone in 2006 (over $1 billion per day) on the nearly $9 trillion of government debt.

Take a look below at US production of military aircraft during World War II.  This type of production was possible because there were US companies already involved in the heavy manufacturing industry.  We will have a hard time flipping this switch again if our main industries are foreign owned or operating abroad.

Military aircraft of all types

1.       United States = 324,750

2.       Germany = 189,307

3.       Soviet Union = 157,261

4.       United Kingdom = 131,549

5.       Japan = 76,320

6.       Canada = 16,431

7.       Italy = 11,122

The US was founded on the principle of federalism; where there is a centralized government with sovereignty in certain areas and sub-units (State and local governments) with sovereignty in other areas.  This separation of powers worked well throughout the 18th and most of the 19th Centuries. Beginning in the late 19^th, and accelerating in the 20th Century, the lines drawn between the central government and the state governments blurred to the point where the states cannot sneeze without federal approval or federal dollars.  Part of this came about as a result of the mindset change from the government staying out of your way so you can prosper to the government being the enabler of your prosperity.  This fundamentally flawed approach to government has led to unprecedented federal growth and eliminated the awareness of our federalist form of government. 

States and lobbyists have become the humble suppliants (beggars) for federal funds that Franklin Pierce warned us of when he was vetoing social bills in the 1850’s.  There is a way to resolve this that should satisfy both progressives and conservatives.  It takes the understanding that there are certain precedents set, that although they fall out of line with the Founders' vision, they are political realities today.  On the other side, people must realize that several of today's federal programs are duplicative and unnecessary.  By a balanced plan of devolution, retention, privatization, a revised revenue sharing plan, and the implementation of the Fair Tax, our country can revitalize federalism for the 21st Century. 

I am proposing a new kind of US federalism.  One that takes into account factors and ideologies not present at our nation's founding, like communism, heavy industrialization, and the technical revolution.  We were an agrarian society at our founding and are now a world super power.  

Even with the reality that Social Security is not going away any time soon, it is time to change the States’ focus from fighting for their “fair share” of federal tax dollars to competing with each other in creating the most innovative solutions for their citizens.   Ask your congressman what is a "fair share" of federal dollars.  Is it based on a formula of population and per capita income (the general welfare) or is it get the most you possibly can? 

The 1970s saw a failed experiment with federal revenue sharing.  Federal dollars were dispersed to local government entities to go for capital improvements and other large dollar improvements. However, it was shown that many cities spent this money on local matters like golf courses, paying fire and police salaries, etc.. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962610,00.html).  This ineffective use of federal dollars led to the scrapping of revenue sharing in the Reagan era. 

My proposed federal revenue sharing plan would disperse monies directly to the State governments, instead of the local governments, without restrictions on how this money would be spent.  This would be coupled with the elimination or downsizing of several federal departments (ED, HUD, HHS, DOL, etc…).  The dollar amounts funneled to each State would be at least 20% less than the totals they are receiving now and would be based on population. The large reductions in federal dollars would be offset by the elimination of federal oversight and the strict regulations stating how the money is to be allocated.  The States would be responsible for creating the requirements for how this money is spent and managing their budget. 

The federal government would retain its intended responsibilities of national defense, diplomacy, currency management, and foreign and interstate commerce.  It would also be responsible for some established practices, like Social Security (needs to be tackled separately instead of part of a major reform) and ensuring that the States retain the level of social justice that was fought for and won.  The feelings towards State's rights are tainted by the failure of many State governments to address civil rights issues in the past.  This failure to promote freedom casts a pall on attempts to revive federalism.  The established progress would not be reverted to the States. 

This plan allows for the arguments between big government and little government advocates to be made at the State level.  50 laboratories of democracy would be working towards solutions to such things as health care, education, and urban development to name a few.  Successful programs would be mimicked and unsuccessful programs could be scrapped.  If you lived in a State that was teetering on socialism, you could relocate.  If you felt your State did not do enough for your welfare, you could relocate.

Competition is beneficial.  Without it, there is little incentive to be productive.  Our path towards a single central authority needs to be changed.  We can do better.

Target Number 1- Department of Education

There is no direct relationship between federal dollars per student and school performance.  Problems cannot be solved by throwing more money at it and adding more layers of bureaucracy.  Arizona is the top recipient of federal dollars per student yet they rank 50^th in a recent Smartest State ranking (http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm).

Washington, DC, could cure many of its lobbying ills by returning States issues to their rightful place.  This does not prevent national unions, like the National Education Association, from lobbying State governments and requesting that the governors communicate with each other to create national standards. 

Let’s take a look at how Senator Clinton will fund her universal health care with a “net tax cut for American taxpayers.”  According to Hillary’s plan, half of the funds for her $110 billion plan will be raised by reducing overpayments and inefficiencies and the other half will be raised by cutting back tax breaks for the “wealthy”.

I’ll admit skepticism in the federal government’s ability to reduce waste.  However, that does not mean I don’t support innovative ideas.  Senator Clinton highlights specific plans to reduce waste, like phasing out excessive Medicare overpayments to HMOs.  This would benefit all Americans and would result in billions of dollars in savings, which I think is a great idea.  These savings could then be returned to the American people to spend as they see fit.  Why can’t Senator Clinton work on reforming something as wasteful as overpayments equaling billions of dollars from her seat in the Senate?  Why does that have to be part of a Universal Health Care plan that is dependent on her election to the Presidency?

The other half of the $110 billion would be raised by cutting back President Bush’ tax cuts for the “wealthy”.  Why doesn’t she see that these tax cuts for the “wealthy” motivate individuals and businesses to invest in non-tax shelter ventures (like providing jobs)?  Hike up the taxes to unforgiving levels and the wealthy put more money where it is sheltered from income taxes.  They can actually afford to pay someone to protect their money. 

The 2006 individual income tax and corporate income tax revenues jumped above pre-2001 levels as a result of the Bush tax cuts.  It is proven that lower taxes stimulate investment while higher taxes stifle it.  Just look at what corporate taxes and regulations have done to our manufacturing sector.

Why doesn’t the Democratic Party realize that individuals and corporations can effect positive change in our country without government intervention?  They should read President Clinton’s new book on how “individual endeavors can save lives and solve problems.”  “Through the stories of amazing people and dedicated organizations, President Clinton offers compelling examples of both citizen and corporate activism at work in the world today.”  It’s funny how someone’s mindset changes when they are not running for office.  I commend the President for this work and bringing his message of empowerment to private citizens.  http://giving.clintonfoundation.org/

Selection from Senator Clinton’s Health Care plan:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

I tried to find ways to put my feelings about the announcement that Hillary Clinton will unveil HillaryCare redux (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html) in my own words.  I wanted to capture the fact that these income redistribution and forced entry programs run counter to the founding principles of the USA.   But you know what, who the heck am I?  I’ll let Thomas Jefferson take this one.  Per the US Treasury website:    

Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

I figure someone with a memorial in Washington, DC, and his face carved into a mountain could put it better.  History is empowering.  It’s a shame that more people don’t feel that way.

PS..
While on the US Treasury website's history of taxation, I found the statement below interesting.

Prior to the enactment of the income tax (1913), most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities. The income tax fundamentally changed this relationship, giving the government the right and the need to know about all manner of an individual or business' economic life.
One more reason to support the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org).  

Let’s just hope that 55% of voters in the general election prefer personal responsibility to the taxes that will need to be raised to pay for Senator Hillary Clinton’s socialist agenda.  At the AARP’s legislative conference, Clinton promised to save Social Security (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5107253.html)

"This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States," Clinton said to applause from seniors gathered in Washington to push their policy agenda. "When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

She also said she does not support cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age. Seniors can begin collecting partial benefits at age 62, with full benefits available at age 67 for those born in 1960 or later. Clinton said instead she will protect the program through fiscal responsibility and criticized President Bush's leadership on the issue.

Hillary has come up with some interesting campaign slogans on her quest to rescue America from itself.

·         “We’re all in it together” society

·         Privatization is not the answer to anything

Apparently in her infinite wisdom she knows what is needed to protect us from ourselves.  Who is going to save us from Hillary Care? 

I truly hope that Mike Huckabee has the opportunity to debate Hillary on these issues.  Below is an excerpt from his meeting with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board:

The President was right to address Social Security and the fact that it's just out of control.  I think his biggest mistake was that he used a word that scared the daylights out of people -- which was "privatization" -- at a time when people saw privatization as the stock market, insanity of...Enron and WorldCom, companies like it.  What we need to be talking about, and we need to sit down with Democrats, acknowledge that we have a problem that is neither Democratic nor Republican, it goes to what I call the difference between horizontal and vertical politics...

Americans are looking for vertical leadership.  They don't really care how you pin it on the ideological scale, whether it's left or right.  What they are interested in is it is up or down.  They are looking for vertical answers.  And as long as Washington fights everything on the horizontal plane it's not going to get better. 

The President needs to sit down with members of Congress and agree that we've got this incredible train wreck coming, and talk about how we can empower individuals, not through privatization, but through personalization, and that the answer is that we find ways in which people have a greater level of control on projecting their future.  And it's not going to be a one-size-fits-all necessarily...

I think we ought to come to the table with no preconceived notions, except the notion that there's got to be a way in which every American has some personal stake in his or her long-term retirement and long-term health and Medicare.  If you don't do that, if there's no skin in the game, and all I got to do is just sort of wait and let somebody else worry about it, I'm not going to worry about it. So that's what has to happen.

I disagree with his avoidance of the word privatization because that seems to be a slight departure from his usual candor.  However, the rest of Governor Huckabee’s thoughts are spot on.  It’s all about finding solutions that provide individuals with choice. 

I personally don’t believe Social Security should be a federal program, but that is not going to change anytime soon.  You can choose to be a lemming and follow someone that has taken private choice off the table or follow someone that truly understands that choice, personal responsibility, market solutions, and having a stake in the outcome are critical to finding the answer.

The Cato Institute has some interesting reading on their plan to reform Social Security by instituting free choice:

http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html

http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-32es.html

http://mikehuckabee.com

"Want of care does us more damage than want of knowledge." Poor Richard's Almanac (Benjamin Franklin)

It is time for politicians to exhibit the courage for some straight talk with the American people regarding health care before it replaces Social Security as the third rail of politics.  Candidates and office holders need to step up and explain to the country why federally funded universal health care is so dangerous to the economy and to the level of service we expect from our health care providers before everyone is brainwashed into believing we cannot care for ourselves. 

Politicians shy away from addressing the original third rail of politics, Social Security, because we have been convinced that we could not retire without the federal government's assistance.  It is currently a political loser to propose to eliminate Social Security or to privatize certain aspects.  How far did President Bush get with his proposal to give people a voluntary personal account within the Social Security system? 

The key word in the President’s proposal was “voluntary” and the entitlement advocates and socialists still protested.  These groups fear personal choice, common sense, and risk.  They feel that every situation is a win-lose proposition and that we are better off having big government control the money and dole out payments equally to all citizens (While you’re at it, you might as well provide these services to those here illegally too.  Everyone has a right to entitlements).  Hopefully the tide changes before the system goes bankrupt. 

Don't let the liberals in Congress and the media convince you that you cannot provide for your own health care without the federal government taking over the entire industry.  Find out who pays for free universal health care.  Know that if universal health care is adopted and does not work, it would be incredibly difficult to repeal and fully transition back to private markets.  Know that it is not cruel or heartless to explore options in the private market.  Ask yourself if you want a DMV experience when going to the doctor.

Simple Solutions:

1. Allow individuals to use pre-tax dollars to purchase health care insurance: This reduces dependence on employer provided insurance.  Consumers would have the choice to use employer provided insurance that is not portable or shop around for insurance that does not depend on employment.
2. Eliminate or reduce government mandated health benefit laws that drive up the costs of health insurance: Mandated health benefits force insurers to provide coverage for procedures not usually covered in basic health care plans.  According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, there were only seven state-mandated benefits in 1965, yet there are nearly 1,000 today.  “While many mandates cover basic providers and services, others require coverage for such non-medical expenses as hairpieces, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, pastoral and marriage counseling.”  All these mandates pile up and significantly increase the costs of insurance.  With choice, I am going to assume that many consumers would choose to forego paying for hairpiece coverage.
3. Allow insurance to be purchased across state lines: An immediate benefit of eliminating state government mandated health benefit laws and other restrictions would be to allow consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines.  With increased competition and choice, prices will fall.  The internet would turn into a great resource for shopping around.  I am sure you could still find hairpiece coverage.
4. Leave it up to the states to create programs that allow those below the poverty line to earn health insurance: Focus the federal government on federal matters and reduce the time spent in Washington debating things that are outside their realm of control.  The 50 States can be individual laboratories of democracy in action.  John Edwards can run for governor of North Carolina and take his big dreams of addressing the two North Carolinas with him.

As usual, I turn to James Madison for an explanation of the intended scope of the federal government.

Excerpt from Federalist #45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

For example, under today's tax codes, entrepreneurs are disadvantaged because they can not purchase health insurance with pre-tax dollars. A common sense and far reaching reform would be to allow all consumers to buy insurance with pre-tax dollars. However, if the Fair Tax was implemented, this reform would be moot. Also, talk of extending income tax credits to the poor to assist in purchasing insurance would no longer be applicable. How do candidates talk of extending tax credits to assist with health care reform and then talk of eliminating the income tax code and all its loop holes?

I do not claim to know the solutions. Personally, I would prefer the states take on the responsibility to come up with individual market based solutions for these issues