I saw this today:

"COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina lawmakers recommended a formal rebuke on Wednesday for Gov. Mark Sanford for his summertime tryst and travel, opting to censure the Republican after nixing an impeachment measure.

A panel considering impeachment called his trip to see his Argentine mistress embarrassing and said his use of state planes was poor judgment, but they mostly agreed it was not serious misconduct that merited removal from office. Instead, the seven lawmakers unanimously sent a full legislative committee a measure that would censure Sanford."

Can someone please help me understand how committing adultery, stealing state tax payer money in the form of fuel and transportation (and who knows what else) to pursue this affair, disappearing for 7 days in Buenos Aires and lying to the public about it not serious misconduct?! I must have missed something.

The duplicity in politics is truly sickening...

Accessed at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091209/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor on December 9, 2009

Governments were instituted by God for the benefit of man. Their proper role is to ensure the safety and domestic tranquility of its citizens, support interstate commerce, and support the general welfare of the People.

Do you believe that?

The goverment has the powers to enact laws that are necessary and proper to ensure that it can fulfill the responsibilities and powers delegated to it (Article 1 of the US Constitution).

Do you believe that?

The survival of the Government at the local, state and Federal levels is tied to the survival of the financial system. Without a functioning financial system public credit would be gone, the money system destroyed and the whole system of our country would be gone thus leaving our country open to foreign invasions, turmoil from within and a cessation of all public and therefore private services.

Do you agree with that?

If you believe these things then you should, in some way, support government intervention in the free market when it's lack of involvement would mean the destruction of the system that supports our government and therefore it would destroy our government as well.

If you believe that, then you must ask yourself, "What level of intervention then is necessary and proper?" Was and is the financial system at that level of risk where it required and requires the government's involvement to keep it from falling apart? Also, at what point does Government involvement increase the likelihood of its destruction?

We must do our research and answer that question for ourselves.

In response to a friend's question about what would I do regarding the economic stimulus plan and the current situation, I put this forward as a possible solution. At first pass, this is the direction I think we should go:

Communicate with Hope and Vision

It is the role of all leaders to lead us to a better place. The words we say have a powerful effect on the feelings we feel and the actions we take. If I were responsible for the country, I would hope that I would recognize this important trust and communicate the truth of the present and a vision of optimism and hope for the future.

Understand the Long Term Issues Facing the Country

One of the primary problems I see with the current economic situation is that the TARP and current stimulus plan being debated is, as most legislation is, very reactionary. Politicians are never voted in for their 10-20 year plans. They are voted in for what they can do for the problems people were facing yesterday. As a result, the actions in congress are very reactionary and sadly do little to avoid problems and create strategies for the future.

It is important to note that I believe that for those long term needs for the safety and general welfare of the People that the free market has failed to see profit in, the Government has a role to ensure the need is met. Please know up front that I do not believe that the role of government is to interfere in the marketplace where there is a marketplace but in those places where there is not one. The government cannot be, and should not be, the be all and end all of everything as it is quickly becoming. The place of government is not to prop up crippled institutions, cap executive salaries, flood markets with endless streams of cash, nationalize institutions, purchase private equities in firms or place an impossible burden of debt on the backs of the People for immidiate, short term boosts.

I would therefore not take any short term action that would adversely affect the long term future of our nation's children. Those issues that must be addressed to ensure long term success for the nation are:

1. The Breakup of the Family as the Basic Unit of Society

It is in the interest of the citizens of our nation to help ensure that each child born into our country is born to a father and a mother who honor their marital vows. Children that are raised in a loving home gain the self confidence they need to succeed in life, a foundation of love and respect for their fellow man, and a commitment to generally a sense of personal honor and commitment. The breakdown of the family will be a country of individuals whose hearts have grown cold through abuse and neglect and who will desire love but not know how to find it. The dissatisfaction with this kind of life leads many to a life of a relentless pursuit of selfishness. Selfishness only brings more misery and heartache along with the other ills of an uncivilized people. As a leader I would promote fidelity and the virtues of honor, commitment, love, respect, and forgiveness.

2. The Growing Lack of Creativity

Western civilization has primarily grown out of our ability to create. Inventions that bless the lives of individuals whether for increased work productivity or leisure are desired commodities. The United States is producing fewer and fewer creative inventions. This decline in America's ability to create will cause a real shift in global positioning that is concerning for our children.

The government must actively be finding ways to help more people become interested in engineering and the sciences. The government must understand its place in funding the sciences of all kinds and in removing barriers to the country remaining competitive on this front. Creativity in renewable energies is a key area for our nation to gain core competencies. This leads us to the next long term problem.

3. Education

Natural born citizens have fallen far behind the rest of the world in education. Our children do not learn much in school and our parents are not concerned or trying to help them learn more. Instead, they want their children's lives to be dominated by extra-curricular activities rather than academic ones. Learning must be enshrined as part of our culture - not just entertainment. As a leader, I would work with leading business and education leaders to help re-shape the American education system to help our children be prepared for and to help shape the 21st Century.

4. Immigration Reform

Because our schools are not producing the number of graduates that are needed to fill the creative jobs in our country, we must make it easier and not harder for the dreamers, the creators, the engineers of today in foreign countries to become American citizens. The doors of our country should open to the people of all nations and we should welcome them into our nation and culture.

5. Energy Independence

The long term success of the west is dependent on energy independence. The government must take a strategic role in helping our country leave behind its dependence on foreign oil. The country must enact true, long term energy policy that would greatly reduce or entirely eliminate our need for foreign oil. Just yesterday it was announced that China purchased more cars last month than the United States for the first time. Imagine what a billion more cars on the road will mean for the oil supply. We are in an insecure place if we are all relying on the same source of energy. America must see the greater need for long term energy policy. The safety of our nation largely depends on this one piece - energy independence.

Understand the Short Term Problems Facing the Country

As I see it, the true short term problems of our nation are:

1. The Housing Market

The housing market was one of the primary sources of our current economic problem. In the short term, relief must be given to those deserving home owners who are facing foreclosures. Rather than give hundreds of billions to banks to compensate them for their losses, the government should step in and force a renegotiation of contract and interest rate that ensures the people of this great country are served as well as the interest of the banks.

2. Inflation

The Government and Federal Reserve have already spent or committed nearly $10 Trillion on the economic bailout. That is a lot of extra money that has gone into the economy. Additionally, M2 - the Nation's money supply - is growing at a rate of 24%. That is scary - do you want to see 20% inflation? I don't - that is a very dangerous thing. The Federal Reserve must stop flooding the markets with money and the government must stop this as well or else I fear our economy would be incredibly hurt. So, not just those who have been unwise would be hurt - but those who have been wise as well. As a leader I would make this hard decision.

3. Credit

The lending institutions who have been given money in the TARP funds should be required to use the funds or return them to the government. The only way they will return to solvency is by earning money and they cannot do that by "strengthening their balance sheets" alone. They have to produce something and that "something" is financial services and credit.

4. Reaction

As a leader I would urge Congress to not react with haste but with positive energy and a long term strategy to create the right solutions for our nation's current and future issues.

5. Energy Costs

In reality, many people and businesses were hurt over the recent high energy costs which is a result of the country's complacency in creating alternative fuel sources. The government has a place to ensure that monopolies on energy are charging fair and reasonable prices for the fuel they provide. There needs to be some government oversight for industries where there is not a true free market.

6. Out of Control Government Spending

I need to say nothing more than the banner at the top of this page. By living way beyond our means we are quickly laying the foundation for certain economic, long term doom.

For an infrastructure bill we should understand the key structural issues that need addressing.

I do not believe that roads and bridges are a huge problem to our country's present and future growth. If there are real problems with some roads and bridges we should by all means fix them. However, the current financial crisis is not the time to be working on roads that simply need widening or freeways that need expanding for no real reason other than to create jobs.

The real structural problems that need addressing are as follows:

1. Fiscal Policy

It is my belief that the Federal Reserve Act should be amended to allow the Fed to only increase the money supply according to the increase in productivity. Any exceptions to this should be approved by the House of Representatives. Allowing a private bank to control the wealth of the nation, which is the labor of the people, puts the people at odds with business and slaves almost to the wealth they should own. The People of this nation are the wealth thereof and should be the ones responsible for the money supply.

2. Tax Reform

Our government must look at true tax reform and investigate a more representative tax system.

3. Government Oversight

For the country to not repeat the same problems that led to this, the White House should investigate and find the places where oversight failed or was non-existent and propose corrections. We have laws and police to enforce those laws. This is a place that certainly needs some attention. As a good friend posted a comment on dirivities, this would certainly be the area to monitor that.

4. True government fiscal reform

To save our country we must end the entitlement state, allow market forces and the common descency of our people to fill in the gaps, and restore Government to its proper place. By following the Long Term plan I put forth above, we would be able to better position our country for future economic success and help to create a better and safer world.

Conclusion

If I were responsible for such a monumental task, I would like to think this is where I would start. This is what I feel the proper role of government is. There are those that believe that any government involvement is bad involvement (I have found that to be mostly partisan rhetoric). I disagree and know that history would disagree along with some of our greatest founding fathers. Hamilton, Madison (as they wrote in the Federalist) and Washington would have believed in some limited involvement for the benefit of all in these types of situations.

I do not believe the government should be hands off but I also do not believe it possesses the solutions to the problems. It can only work by communicating with optimism and creating the proper structure for the true creative forces to work - the People of our great land. To do this, the government should avoid destroying the people by stealing their wealth through inflation, taxing them for their whole lives for a benefit that will last a few months, and creating a nationalized system that takes the true creative forces out of the market that blesses our lives.

The answer lies in the People and if we are true to the principles of individual liberty and justice for all, we will make tomorrow better than today for you, me and our children.

As I sit back and think about the Republican candidate for President, I have to ask myself, "What happened?"

I read a great article by Dennis Byrne tonight on abortion. This article is not politically charged - just informative about current debate on the issue. It's full text can be found here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0826byrneaug26,0,4780984.story

I quote from that article:

"Can we just listen to ourselves? We're debating whether some babies born alive have a right to medical attention.

"How have we come to this? Can't we all agree that everyone whose heart beats, brain functions and lungs respire at birth should have a chance to live? If we're a compassionate, rational and just society, we would say, "Of course, every infant has a right to lifesaving medical attention. Even if it's not wanted."

"But an unthinkable debate is raging as a part of the presidential campaign, centering on how Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted while he was an Illinois state senator on legislation designed to protect the lives and health of all newborns. The debate over Obama's voting record has grown so arcane that we've lost sight of why this question ever came up: Some infants that survive abortion are denied medical assistance. They are left to die.

"Jill Stanek, a former nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, described in 2001 during congressional testimony how it happens: In a "live-birth abortion," doctors "do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward." Medication stimulates the cervix to open, allowing the baby to emerge, sometimes alive. "It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital, one . . . lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift." Some actually are born healthy because they are aborted to preserve the "health" of the mother, or because the pregnancy was due to rape or incest. At best, they are left in a "comfort room," complete with a camera (for pictures of the aborted baby) "baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, footprinting equipment and baby bracelets for mementos and a rocking chair," where they are rocked to death. "Before the comfort room was established," Stanek said, "babies were taken to the soiled utility room to die."

"Yes, there ought to be a law against this, and Congress passed one unanimously. It declares that a person is defined as "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Born alive means any human being that after "expulsion or extraction" from the mother "breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, Caesarean section, or induced abortion.

"Pretty simple, right?

"Well, not really. Some people fear that this fundamental protection, ensuring to all the first of the rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," is in reality a sneak attack on a woman's right to choose an abortion. To prevent this "Trojan horse," they insisted, and got, in the federal law a guarantee against construing the law to "affirm, deny or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive'. . ." This mumbo jumbo is supposed to mean that abortions can't be restricted...

"Such logic is breathtaking. It says that even after birth, a mother's right to rid herself of the baby supersedes any right that a child, now independent of the mother's body and domain, has a right to live. Where America stands on this issue truly is a measure of its sense of justice and compassion..."

I am writing as an American who believes in our nation and our role in the world. I actually believe that we do have a role in the world by virtue of where we have placed ourselves. We have grown in such a way that has created alliances, treaties and agreements with foreign nations that has formed an interdependence - but with America at the center of the wheel. We are the true leader of the alliances, treaties and agreements with these foreign nations.

I do also believe that America is the standard for freedom and a defender of our free neighbors in the world.

Since our founding we have been engaged in various wars. Wars are always tied to money and power – on at least one side if not both. Wars for that purpose are wrong and the deaths of millions are on the heads of a relatively few men who have plunged their nations into wars that those who die to fight them reap no benefit from. Their deaths bring them honor, but bring their loved ones nothing else but sorrow.

This aggression against Georgia is nothing more than classic war for money and power. The cause of the Georgian’s is one that truly seems just to me.

When is war justified?

1. War is obviously justified when we have been attacked but the war should be proportional to the attack and its intention.
2. War is justified when, in the words of Jefferson & the Continental Congress, “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
3. Acts of war are justified when there is an insurrection or a civil war from within.
4. War is justified when a just, sovereign foreign nation who was not an aggressor calls on allies for aid.
5. Acts of war are justified when there is a clear and present danger that will soon strike and bring about greater death than a war to remove the clear and present danger.

When is war not justified?

War is not justified when it is waged for resources, power, or money. Neither is it justified when the aggressor begins it for a reason other than those stated above including to come to the aid of another nation. If they did not officially through their government request the aid, then we must respect their sovereignty and stay out.

It is my belief that America has no interests in other nations that it must proactively protect. Our interests are here and the preservation of true freedom loving allies. If they have interests and are invaded or threatened, and officially request our aid, then we have the right to respond. We may choose not to but we have the right to assist. US businesses may have interests in foreign nations, but America, our government, our people collectively have none and should never be sent to die for “American interests abroad.” We are willing however to die, as we have for centuries now, for our own and other people’s freedom and liberty.

I am shocked at Russia’s aggression towards our ally – Georgia. I am also shocked at our lack of action. Here we are at day four of a conflict that is reshaping the world even as we speak and we have no plan and have said nothing other than we are “concerned” and that Russia’s actions threaten their global position.

All of that was a preface to this: If Georgia officially calls through their democratically elected government for American or other free nation’s aid, we should be willing to answer that call. Would it be easy? No, it would possibly be the greatest struggle in history – fighting the war in Iraq, fighting the War in Afghanistan, fighting the War on Terror, and fighting back Russia from the small nation of Georgia and keeping Russia from once again rising to its unlawful stature as a force to be reckoned with. Freedom is the force to be reckoned with and we need to stand by it.

Ken Coman

Did you ever think that the maybe the Confederates & south, in the Civil War, weren't the rebels but that maybe the rebels were really in the North? I was sitting down tonight pondering over some excellent history that I had recently read as well as the moral groundlessness upon which slavery was built.

At the time of the Declaration of Independence, 25% of the Continental United States was made up of slaves. I do not have the figure, but there was also a large number of Indentured Servants in the colonies at that time. To be conservative, I will say it was only 8%. Combined, 0ne third of our country was in servitude to a master and had nearly no rights - even that basic right of protecting their own lives in many cases. Women were in a similar state with no right to hold property or to have a voice in their government. Out of this situation emerged for the first time a document, penned by a Representative of the People and assented to unanimously by the Continental Congress of the United States of America, alleging certain unalienable rights - those of Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.

Sadly, those rights initially were only granted to land holding white men since not even a free black or Indian could enjoy those rights. For all of the rest, the world wasn't ready for the realization of what the enjoyment of those rights for all meant and thus it was written into law - even within our own constitution when it deemed all other non-free persons to be only three-fifths of a person. At that time, this notion of the master and the servant was deeply entrenched in our culture and stemmed all the way to Jamestown & the first colonists.

However, something changed - the North. They began to move away from this notion of servant and master, oppressor and oppressed. They heard the pleas of their fellow humans and organized the abolitionist movement as well as Women’s Suffrage. The people in the North began to rebel against the old order and to form a new one founded on the principles penned and ascribed to decades earlier. They began to rebel against the old order of States Rights and the Confederation under the old Articles. They began to truly form a more perfect Union.

This change, this rebellion against the old order & the way things were, finally encroached too much on the South who were determined not to change but to keep the status quo. When the Northern rebellion against the status quo became so powerful that America elected a president from the abolitionist Republican Party – it was time to fight back and to defend that which was their own – their history, their heritage, what they viewed to be their property and their way of life.

No, the south didn’t rebel and sadly that was the problem. The North did and thank God they did so that in very deed the blessings of our more perfect union and the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness could be more fully enjoyed by more of God’s children.

I believe in freedom and in its boundaries. When another person's freedom infringes on the freedom and rights of others, they have exercised their freedom in an unjust fashion. Such an exercise becomes a crime.

Regarding the boundaries of free exercise, I would like you to consider part of the original draft of the Bill of Rights for Pennsylvania's first Constitution. In that first draft it read:

"An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property."

Is that true? Does the holding of an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals create a danger and destroy the common happiness of mankind? This isn't a question you should answer with your knee jerk as you may be inclined to do.

As I look in my minds eye at the vast expanse of humanity around the world, and knowing that the majority of wealth is owned by a minority of the earth's population, and knowing that wars are generally waged over wealth (i.e., gold, land, resources) and to get more of it either because the poor don't have it or the rich want more of it, and whereas wars cause so much misery to the people involved, and knowing that the lack of opportunities afforded to so many around the world is a factor in crime, social ills, disease and death, I can see the danger and destruction that the incredibly disproportionate distribution of wealth can create.

Does therefore the endless accumulation of wealth infringe on the rights of others? It may. It may cause people to be pressed into war who have no true interest in it. It may push others into poverty. It may keep people from basic services. It may cause so many of the ills we see and hear around us and in our world.

The endless accumulation of wealth was never meant to be the American Dream as so many think it is. The American Dream was about Freedom, Liberty, Justice, & the protection of Natural Rights. Let us never forget what our country was and should be really about - Liberty & Justice for all. We as a Nation have never been perfect at that but we have gotten better as we have looked to our foundation - the principles the founders aspired to. That foundation has continued to transform the way we have built & changed our society since 1776.

May Liberty and Justice for all continue to form how we look at the true American Dream versus the fraud so that our American home, and therefore our world home, can be one of freedom, justice and protection of natural rights for all mankind. And may each one of us consider again the question "Does the holding of an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals create a danger and destroy the common happiness of mankind?" and then live and act accordingly.

While on my lunch break today I was doing some investigating on what Congress had been up to yesterday and I came across this resolution called "Supporting the goals and ideals of the International Year of Sanitation." I had to read it just because I thought it sounded silly. You can read the resolution on the link below.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110yUqwxM::

In the resolution it references the "Millenium Development Goals." I had never heard of these goals and did a google search on them and found they are 8 goals agreed to by the countries of the UN to reduce certain social ailments that plague our world by the year 2015.

I was encouraged by the goodwill of men and women everywhere who work towards these lofty but important goals. I thought I would make you aware of them too so that you might be inspired by the good in our world that does still take place.

You can read them here:

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

God bless you in all of your good efforts as well.

Ken

Scott McClellan

I have watched several interviews – probably four or five now - with former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan regarding his new book “What Happened.”

It shouldn’t amaze any of us the level of attacks that have come against him as he has shared with the American people, who he was sworn to serve, his story and perspective on what happened in the White House during his tenure there.

I know that there are many of us who would like to not believe what he is saying. It is hard to hear someone say that our Vice President manipulated intelligence and that our President and his advisors lead a war of propaganda to convince the American people and our elected officials that there was a clear and present danger.

Tonight I watched McClellan be interviewed by Bill O'Rielly. It was unbelievable how O’Reilly spent the whole time trying to defame and discredit McClellan – calling him a person of propaganda. Here are some of the things he said:

“Your book is Propaganda.”
“I think you’re naive.”
“Surely you know how you are being used.”
“Negative spin.”
“I think you are being used by your publisher.”
“Why didn’t you stick up for the president?”

And my favorite:

“It’s not the truth it’s your opinion.”

McClellan either saw it or he didn’t. He either heard it or he didn’t. It’s not his opinion. It’s what happened. Why is it so hard for us to believe and accept? Especially when Scott McClellan isn’t the first person to say these things either.

Let’s listen and let’s do something about it. Let’s believe the hard stuff and be wiser in how we vote and in how involved we are after the election.

O’Reilly said that McClellan didn’t have the courage to do what was right. He said, “It’s a matter of courage isn’t it?”

McClellan had courage – he had the courage to know before hand what he was going to get into when he told the truth.

Is O’Reilly unbiased?

Is O’Reilly fair?

Is O’Reilly balanced?

I don’t think so.

It is a shame that he calls himself a journalist and it’s a shame that he has such a large following. We need information and to be allowed to make our own decisions and not be tricked into believing something by him or any other person.

We need facts not opinions.

I am grateful that a true patriot that is looking beyond the election and his party has had the moral courage to stand up for the facts and to share them with us – the People.

At Saturday's state convention, while walking around and seeing the different candidates running for office, I met a few people who were campaigning on the agenda that, if elected, they would work toward stopping the creation of a North American Union. The North American Union they speak of would be similar to that of the European Union where the United States, Canada and Mexico would join together in a grand alliance of free trade, loosened borders, unrestricted travel, a common currency ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6638097241299092586&hl=en ) and defense strategy.

Those who talk about such a union and the government's covert plans to bring it about will often site a paper written by the council on foreign relations. I thought it would be useful for you to read this paper for yourself. You can click on the link below to read it:

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

I have read it and do not find the recommendations threatening nor do I find the concept of working closer together for our common defense and prosperity a negative thing. I always have been and always will be for the principle that the government is ours and that all things must be done by the consent of the people and that to do anything else is a violation of oath and duty. It is my hope that any discussions to bring us closer together will be through open debate and the voice of the people.

Some progress has already been made to bring about these positive changes. You can read about them on the government's website for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: http://www.spp.gov/

At the convention those who spoke out against such a union or the progress towards it spoke about conspiracies, surrender of sovereignty, surrender of our rule of law and the surrender of our voice in the government. These same arguments were used against our own Union following the revolution. I would say that generally their fears never materialized and that the Union of the United States was the greatest event that could have happened to ensure the security and prosperity of our citizens.

The more we are able to break down the barriers that separate us and to become a people of common interests, values, principles, laws and goals the better we will be able to pursue the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. God be thanked for our Union.

I have written before about Health care expenses and that one way to encourage more free market forces in the health care industry would be to eliminate the anti-trust protection afforded to the insurance industry. This was not very well accepted by our own Senator Orrin Hatch - you can read his letter to me below.

Another thought provoking idea is one created by Michael Cannon of the CATO Institute. In his paper, "Large Health Savings Accounts: A Step toward Tax Neutrality for Health Care," Cannon proposes making some changes to HSA's which would encourage more competition and therefore drive prices down to a competitive level. His proposals are as follows:

1. Increase HSA contribution limits dramatically. For illustrative purposes, assume the maximum annual contribution limits would be roughly tripled, from $2,850 to $8,000 for individuals and from $5,500 to $16,000 for families.
2. Remove the requirement that HSA holders be covered by a qualified high-deductible health plan. HSAs would be open to those covered by any type of insurance, as well as the uninsured.
3. Allow HSA holders to purchase health insurance, of any type and from any source, tax-free with HSA funds.

Cannon writes, "Restructuring the exclusion for employer-sponsored health benefits in this way would enable more individuals to obtain health insurance that matches their preferences, would increase efficiency in the health care sector, and could reduce inequities created by the exclusion. These changes also offer a means of limiting the currently unlimited tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health benefits that may be more politically feasible than past proposals. " He concludes: "Large HSAs could serve as a step toward a tax system that offers no preferred treatment to health expenditures, and thereby forces the health care sector to accomplish more with the resources devoted to it."

I personally liked his ideas and recommend that we look closer at them and invite our elected officials to look closer as well. What we need is not more government health care programs or forcing employers to purchase group insurance (which would just perpetuate and deepen the divide between the consumer and the prices) such as those being proposed by certain presidential contenders.

To read his full report, please click on the link below.

http://www.bepress.com/fhep/11/2/3/

One of the most important political issues besides the economy is health care. The rate of soaring health care costs is alarming to me and to most Americans. It is my belief that competitive forces should push prices lower - not higher. Solutions are being proposed in congress as well as by most of the presidential candidates. It worries me that most of the solutions being proposed involve more government. Not only do I not see the power over health care within the bounds of the constitution, but I also disagree with government involvement and regulation in private industry. Socialism is by definition the control of private property by the community or the government. At our nations founding, we, as Americans, ascribed to the free market system rather than a socialist system. However, when the free market system is perceived to have failed us, we move towards socialism to find a solution.

It is my opinion that we the people are being told that the free market system has failed us in the health care industry. By looking at health care premiums, out of pocket maximums, deductibles, co-pays and the like, I would agree with them. However, it just doesn't seem right to me - there has to be something missing.

What if our current health care system isn't really free market? That is what I proposed to Congressman Rob Bishop and Senator Orrin Hatch. In our current US Anti-trust laws there are two industries exempted: Major League Baseball and Insurance. I believe that the protection afforded to the insurance industry could be a likely cause of our rising health care costs - simply because they are not required to compete in a fair, open market system. This protection keeps them from competing against each other and allows prices to soar - and the consumer can do nothing about it.

My letters received two entirely different responses. I got a personal phone call from my congressman who said he was in favor of creating an environment of more competition but was unaware of the protection the insurance industry enjoyed and promised to look into it. Senator Hatch on the other hand sent me the following:

"Dear Mr. Coman:

Thank you for your letter... I certainly understand your concern regarding this issue. I have heard similar concerns from Utahns regarding these matters. In addition, over the past few years, legislation has been introduced in Congress that would repeal all or part of the insurance industry's anti trust exemption.

In general, I approach antitrust issues with the priority of doing what is best for the consumers... there are (however) many arguments in favor of maintaining the insurance industry's current exemption.

Rest assured that, as the Senate continues to debate this issue, I will work to ensure that we properly balance the needs of the consumers with the needs of various businesses. While I recognize that repealing or even imposing certain limits on the current exemption might have some market benefits, I would be hesitant to support legislation that would unduly harm small insurance companies and agents, especially those in Utah...

Sincerely,

Orrin G. Hatch"

I am inclined to disagree with my Senator. I am worried that this is a short sighted approach - if we don't do the right thing, it will hurt the consumer as well as all of the insurance companies as we move to more socialized medicine due to the failure of the current system to bring us the care needed, for those who need it, at a price they can afford. It is my opinion that the free market hasn't done this to us - it is everything but the free market. Plastic surgery is a great example - it's not covered by insurance but the prices have been falling year after year while care and quality has gone up and up. The free market could get us out - we need to send in our voices and ask the government to repeal the exemption afforded the insurance industry.

Freedom is the answer.