STOP CAP & TRADE CALL REPS. TODAY 

STOP THE CAP & TRADE IT WILL BE VOTED ON FRIDAY.
The most desturctive legeslation in history. Will cost households est. over $3000 a year in higher energy cost. With a $2 trillion cost to the economy. The really dumb thing is that the alternative energy technology will not be advanced for another 15 years so why in a recession would you burden people more. This is ludicrouis.
CALL YOUR REPS TODAY AND TELL THEM VOTE NO!

Healthcare 

OK 45 million lack health care Insurance! Really! Do the math! Out of over 300 million people 45 million is 15% of the population. That leaves 255 million or 85% with healthcare. So please explain to me how it is cost effective to spend $1.5 TRILLION dollars for 15% of the population. Especially when there are other options out there by prize winning Economist. Like Health Status Insurance (go to Cato.org to see plan and studies) or health savings.
The other thing a study found that half of thos 45 million (abc news kiaser foundation) choose not to buy insurance. Mostly young people who would prefer to spend their money on other things and rich who can afford to pay the medical bills out of pocket. Plus 89% of Americans are satified with their health insurance.
It is ludicrious to spend this kind of money when all we need to do is Get rid of the already costly Government regulations and let the free market take over. Put the responsibility into the peoples hands and they will drive cost. Allow the competition between healthcare providers accross the Nation. This can be done with little legislation and no new tax hikes. It is time to get healthcare out of bureaucrates hand and into the hands of the people. Congress regulates charges thru medicare, it is time for the people to be in charge.
Socialized medicine does not work and is more costly with rationed care and poor service. I don't thing any American want that!

Health care cost have risen due to Government regulation. Between 1999 and 2006 the healthcare industry spent more money on lobbyist then any other business. What does that say? It says Congress has passed regulation that put money in their pocket and in the industries pockets. Get Health Care out of Washington and into the Free Market. That is the only way to stop the coruption.

The Optimum Government 

Our 1st prioity should be creating private sector jobs for without them we have nothing the Government has nothing. NO MONEY. Quit the spending and increasing the size of Government.
Great Article/Study
The Optimum Government
by Richard W. Rahn


Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth

Added to cato.org on January 29, 2009

This article appeared in the Washington Times on January 29, 2009

If you knew economic growth and new job creation begin to slow when total government spending is larger than about 25 percent of the economy, and you knew total government spending in the United States is about 36 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), would you propose policies to make government larger or smaller to create more jobs and boost economic growth?

Over the last few decades, many economists have done studies on the "optimum" size of government. A new study just completed shows the optimum size of government is less than 25 percent of GDP.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth

More by Richard W. Rahn
Optimum is defined as that point just before government becomes so large as to reduce the rate of economic growth and job creation. Governments are created to protect people and property. A government too small to establish the rule of law and protect people and their property from both foreign and domestic enemies is less than optimal.

The American Founding Fathers also believed government had public health functions (as contrasted with spending on private health), such as draining swamps where malaria-infected mosquitos thrived; and some public works functions (e.g. building and maintaining roads, and ensuring basic education - but not necessarily state-operated schools).

The American Founding Fathers also understood that government could easily become too large, which would diminish the liberties of the people and discourage them from engaging in productive activity. The socialist utopians were in denial of the basics of human nature, which scholars like Adam Smith and the American Founders well understood.

Nevertheless, countless socialist schemes to enlarge the size of government have been sold to naive people. After two centuries of experimentation and the unnecessary loss of hundreds of millions of human lives, most of mankind now understands that pure socialism leads to tyranny and economic stagnation.

The question remains: Between the extremes of virtually no government and a pure communist state, how much government is necessary and desirable, and when does it become a drag on both liberty and economic well-being?

Economists have tried to quantify the question by looking at the experience of countries (and economic/political entities) over time as the size of their government grew or contracted, and by making comparisons of governments of various sizes. Most studies measure the size of government as a share of GDP (realizing it is an imperfect measure because it does not measure counterproductive regulation, restrictions on liberty and other factors, but is a reasonable approximation).

Wise observers have well understood that free markets and uncontrolled prices do a far better job in allocating resources (labor and productive investment) than politicians, who tend to resort to deciding what they believe is best for other people and, of course, rewarding their friends.

Most of the studies of the optimum size of government made by reputable scholars in recent decades have indicated that total government spending (federal plus state plus local) should be no lower than 17 percent, nor larger than about 30 percent of GDP. In a just completed paper, economists at the Institute for Market Economics in Sofia, Bulgaria, have provided new estimates of the optimum size of government, using standard models, with the latest data from a broader spectrum of countries than had been previously available. Their conclusion is that there is a 95 percent probability that the optimal size of government is less than 25 percent of GDP.

Between the extremes of virtually no government and a pure communist state, how much government is necessary and desirable...?

Because most governments are - and have been for many years - larger than the optimal, there are insufficient data to give a point estimate as to the best size, other than it is less than 25 percent. Other studies have shown small-population homogeneous countries, such as Finland, may have slightly higher optimal government sizes than heterogeneous countries, such as Switzerland and the United States.

The ramifications of this study and previous ones are important for the current debate going on in the United States and many other countries, about having the government spend more to "stimulate" the economy - i.e. create jobs and increase growth rates.

Rather than increasing the size of government, the empirical evidence shows that sharply reducing taxes, regulations, and government spending down to at least 25 percent of GDP would do the most to spur economic growth and create more jobs over the long run.

There is virtually no empirical evidence - in the United States or anywhere else - to support the belief of economists of the Keynesian school that a big increase in government spending will make matters better, rather than worse. Economists of the Austrian school have, in general, supported smaller government as a way to achieve higher levels of both prosperity and individual freedom, and the empirical evidence shows them to be correct.

In the United States, periods of rapid economic growth, such as 1983-89 and 1992-99, have been associated with a reduction in the total size of government. During the 1970s and much of the last decade, total (federal, state and local) government spending grew to a post-World War II record (36 percent), and these periods were associated with lower economic growth. In recent decades, many European countries have greatly increased government spending as a percentage of GDP, and as a result most of them experienced lower growth rates and much higher rates of unemployment than the United States.

Those members of Congress and parliamentarians in other countries who vote for a "stimulus package" that increases the size of government will be voting for slower economic recovery and higher rates of unemployment over the long run, based on both solid empirical evidence and theory.

No To Obama's Healthcare Reform 

The so called public option insurance will raise cost of private insurance leading to people choosing Government care thinking it will cost less. Yet it has to be payed for and in Countries with Nationalize Healthcare Systems middle class income taxes range from 50% to 60% and their healthcare systems are still broke causing rationed care.
I don't think American's want rationed care.
Medicare waste $1 to every $3 dollars it spends this cost taxpayers over 70 billion a year. I don't think that is a plan worth expanding.
In the UK at any given time 700,000 people are on waiting list for Hospital Admission, with some 50,000 canceled each year. Over 90,000 in New Zeland await treatment. In Sweden waiting time for Heart Surgery can be up to 25 weeks, hip replacement a year. Results of these waiting list are people die or live in pain for months or years. I don't think Americans want that kind of care.
REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM should empower the consumer not the Government Bureaucrats.
Two proposals that would go a long way towards lowering health-care cost and increasing access. One would be to change the tax treatment of health insurance so that individuals who purchase their own insurance receive the same tax break as those who receive employer-provided insurance. By breaking the link between employment and insurance we can ensure that insurance is personal and portable. People could take it job to job. At the same time, because people would be directly purchasing their insurance, and therefore directly confronting the cost, they would become much more cost-conscious in their health care spending. Second, one of the best health-care proposals by Rep. John Shadegg's is to allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines. State mandates and regulations drive up the cost of health insurance. Consumers should be allowed to shop for insurance in states with less costly regulatory regiemes. Those two steps can be done immediately without raising taxes. Also looking into Health saving or Health status Insurance would go far more to saving taxpayers and lowering healthcare cost without rationed care.
Healthcares need to be in the consumers hand. The problem today is that someone else is paying and the industry is over utilized because of it. Also part of the industry could be deregulated to give advantages to consumers and Doctors which could cut cost.
Healthcare lobbyist between 1999 and 2006 spent more money then any other business to lobby Congress and more regulation passed that put money in their pockets at the expence of consumers. I say deregulate the industry and let free market drive cost.

Fannie and Freddie 

Policy makers need to stand up and take responsibility for their actions. The housing bubble and its aftermath arose from market distortions created by the Federal Reserve, Government backing of Fannie and Freddie, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Federal Housing Authority. We are experiencing the unfortunate results of preverse government policies. Yet these policies have not changed and fannie and freddie still remain in business. While they are in dire straights I say let them fail. They have cost taxpayer billions over the years and should be left by the wayside along with the community reinvestment act.

Create Jobs in the Private Sector Not Government Jobs 

Any Jobs created in the public sector destroys jobs in the private sector. Governments don't create real jobs. Government salaries are payed for with taxes, borrowing or printing which puts a burden on taxpayers, employers, value of the dollar and the overall economy.
Also Government spending reduces more jobs in the private sector than it can create in the government sector. Congress need to take some economic classes and look at the studies done world wide and look at what history has taught us.
Countries with large government sectors, like France and Germany, tend to have much higher unemployment rates than countries with smaller government sectors.
Slowing the growth in government spending would speed job growth.
Making the Bush tax cuts permanent would give business incentive to expand and hire new workers.
America needs a big reduction in the corporate tax rate. So long as America’s rate is far higher than other nations, companies will have an incentive to create jobs abroad. The current system is bad for America, but critics have the wrong solution. Instead of making the U.S. tax code even more punitive by ending deferral, we need a reduction in the corporate tax rate. So long as America’s rate is far higher than other nations, companies will have an incentive to create jobs abroad.

If the price of oil and other commodities continue to rise in dollar terms, this will not only slow our economic growth but could stop the recovery.
We need to be aggressive about stopping the oil price increases. Insist that the market set the price not speculators. American policymakers should make a commitment to true free trade and to the elimination of all of America's trade barriers. These are steps that won't cost taxpayers anything unlike the policies your are trying to put forward. Big Government leads to fraud and wasteful spending. plain and simple. We need less Government to grow not more!

Stop Government Growth and Bureaucracy Stop Federal Aid to States 

The Federal Aid system of $500 billion taxpayer dollars goes to Washington each year. Those funds are then sifted through Congress and Federal Bureaucacies then sent back to States somewhat depleted and full of thousands of pages regulations. This Federal expansion into State policy is not only wasteful but goes against the tenth Amendment of our Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal government has specific limited powers and most government functions are to be left to the states.
The Tenth Amendment embodies federalism, the idea that federal and state governments each have separate areas of activity and that federal responsibilities are "few and defined.
If the over 800 programs of Federal aid to States were shut down State Governments and the Private Sector would fund the programs they felt nessessary and it would save taxpayers billions.
Examples of this wasteful spending are for programs like Team Nutrition Grants $10,038,000, Distance Learning and Telemedicine
$54,410,012,Improving Teacher Quality $2,887,439,000
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood$150,000,000
Housing Counseling Assistance $42,000,000, Community Development Block Grants $12,605,900261 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
$80,000,000 Payments for Small Community Air Service $10,000,000
State Indoor Radon Grants $7,438,900 Clean School Bus USA
$6,270,000 Capitalization Grants for Clean Water $886,759,100
National School Lunch $7,457,572,000 Migrant Education State Grants $376,524,000

There are many more that should be and could be funded by State, Local Government or the Private Sector if they are really needed. Federal aid stimulates overspending by the states, requires large bureaucracies to administer, and comes with a web of complex regulations that limit state flexibility. We need someone with alot of guts to tackle this and cut the massive waste.