One additional area I would focus on if I were the leader of this Nation at this important time would be a return to the virtues of Freedom and Accountability. Across this Globe the word "America" is synonyms with "Freedom." America is, or should be, Freedom. I would remind the citizens of our great land that America was founded by men and women who craved for personal responsibility. They craved the opportunity to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors because they had been deprived of them by a Colonial Empire. They craved the opportunity to succeed - even if in the attempt they would fail. I would remind our people that this country was founded to reduce government - not to embolden it. I would tell the leaders of business and industry that the very bedrock of America is not the government but the Freedom the government is to sustain and that Freedom cannot exist without Accountability. They are two sides of the same coin. Once cannot exist without the other.

I received some feedback from a good friend of mine. This is what he said:

"I think rather than initiating a 4th branch, that the other three branches should just get out of the way of economic management. Its not their job to manage the economy. It's their job to make sure people are honest and don't commit fraud. Simple policing."

I agree very much that it is not their job to manage the economy. However, regardless of whether we think it is their job, they have made it their job and will forever make it their job under the current setup. The sad reality of our world is that the government is and will be involved. The Great Depression changed that forever. Nobody wants to be known as the next Herbert Hoover and politicians have put themselves up as the economic saviors of the world. Not only have they put themselves up as that, that is what the people expect of them. The number one issue on voter's minds is the economy. It is political suicide to not acknowledge that.

Here are some articles that show my point:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/01/news/economy/election_issue_poll/index.htm
http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2007/12/economy-number-one-issue.shtml

I agree that the ideal role of government is to stay out of the economy and to let the chips fall where they may. However, our economically uneducated politicians can't afford to take that approach. They have to answer their constituent's requests and we can't blame them. Because our people have turned to their government for economic salvation, the government should be altered to meet that need and it should be altered in a manner that economically intelligent and educated persons are able to be placed in the situation to make those recommendations and decisions. Many economists would vote to not have this much government involvement in the economy.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/02
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977460238
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm
By taking this approach, those who know the economy best would choose to meddle the least. Therefore, the only way to get government truly out of the economy, is to get the government more involved by placing within it the people who know best and are capable of actually making sound economic policies. That cannot be done, in my opinion, in the current system. Therefore, a change of some kind has to happen.

Again, as I see it we have two choices: move ever closer to a dictatorial Executive Branch due to our representative's inability to act forcing our constitution to be null and void or amend our constitution so that we can act - by the people and for the people - for the good of America and for the good of all mankind.

"Let us include in our Constitution for its revision at stated periods. And it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." Thomas Jefferson 1816

Not only should we be grateful for the government our founders gave us, but we should continue their work.

All great architects first envision before they draft. So was it with the great architects of our nation - they envisioned and then drafted. None of them however envisioned what is happening today. What would Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Washington say about our world as it is today with globalization, technology, the media, terrorism and the lust for power among the nation's elite? They would say that designing a government for this world would require that they remain true to their core principles of liberty and creative with the design of the government.

They changed the government according to their world and left a way for us to do the same. It is my belief that all of them would be mortified to know that we have been so slow to adapt our government to our changing world. Among many other things, they would be amazed to see the ultra sensitive Legislative & Executive branches of government - whose many members are almost entirely uneducated on economics and totally un-insulated from the media and the winds of public opinion - drafting the largest economic reform bills in the world's history. They would say it is time we use that seldom used but powerful tool called the "amendment" to revise our constitution.

Keeping in line with their thoughts on the balance of powers, the principles of liberty and the proper role of government, here is what I propose:

An Executive Branch with limited authority as per the Constitution currently.

A Legislative Branch made up of two houses - House and Senate. The Legislative Branch would have all of the same powers they possess now with the exception of regulating Interstate Commerce and overseeing financial policies.

A Judicial Branch made up of two houses called the Administrative Branch and the Judiciary. The Judiciary would be constructed as it is currently. The Administrative Branch would include all of the administrative services such as Social Security, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Department of Transportation, etc. All administrative agencies that also have an appendant administrative court to enforce their guidelines would be included in this branch. The heads of these agencies would be appointed by the Executive and ratified by the Legislative Branch.

A new, fourth branch called the Economic & Commerce Branch made up of two houses: a House & Senate. The house would be elected directly by the people. The Senate would be made up of the several state Treasurers which are elected directly by the people and the Vice President as the President of the Senate.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve would report to this branch of government rather than the legislative branch.


I am amazed to see the most complicated issues of our time being debated by people who are up for re-election in a few weeks and who have very little true knowledge on what is best for our society - economically speaking. It is essentially Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson running the country as congress can only add minor modifications to their proposals due to their lack of knowledge. Paulson and Bernanke are incredibly intelligent but they need help and our current system is not capable of helping them. The legislative branch is too ignorant to give proper oversight and too ignorant to add value on economic policy. It is time that changed. Electing economists to our current legislative branch would cripple our country in all of its other important areas such as national defense, social and domestic policy as well as foreign policy. Creating a fourth branch of government designed for this purpose would attract the best and brightest in the area of economics. Through that collection of bright minds we would see our country evolve and grow in areas never touched and once again lead the world in this revolution of self government.

We have two choices: move ever closer to a dictatorial Executive Branch due to our representative's inability to act forcing our constitution to be null and void or amend our constitution so that we can act - by the people and for the people.

Our founders started the revolution. It didn't end though with their passing. That revolution - the belief in self government and that by self government the people would be better served - started in the hearts of all true Americans and has spread to us today. Just the same as they cast off their government not once, but twice (the Monarchy and the Articles of Confederation) - so too would they urge us to amend our constitution so that our crippled nation can heal itself and move very capably forward into the future.

Not only should we be grateful for the government our founders gave us, but we should continue their work. I urge you to consider this proposal. If you don't like my proposal - that is fine - but somehow our government needs a renovation.

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.

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/

There is certainly an interest all of us have in the economy. The economy is generally and understandably the most important political issue for most Americans. There is a lot of talk about the problems the slowdown in the housing market could be causing. I read this article tonight on AEI and thought it was noteworthy to share on how some of the largest financial firms are surviving and some possible policy proposals to safeguard America from foreign governments investing in private US companies.

Sovereign Funds Offer U.S. Big Gains, Small Risk
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27273/pub_detail.asp

For those who are interested in the Federal Reserve System and how it works, this article is a must read written by one of our nation's most intelligent and well connected individuals (Mankiw served as the Chairman for the President's Council of Economic Advisers until 2005). In this article Mankiw alludes to insulating the Federal Reserve even more from politics (aka the people and our elected representatives) in order to allow it to do what it does best. I myself am cautious of any talk about isolating the people, whose nation this is, any further from the wealth of the nation and would encourage my own lawmakers to have an open and honest discussion about the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System (The constitution gives only the House of Representatives the power to coin money) and the benefits of amending the constitution to allow for it so we can do it right and even better than it is now. The article is brief but enlightening.

How to Avoid Recession: Let the Fed Work
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27272/pub_detail.asp

Knowledge and education is key. If we don't know what to stand for, then we stand for nothing. And if we stand for nothing, we will fall for everything.