There is a strong case for a Mitt Romney vice presidential nod. There are 3 main reasons why Mitt Romney should get the nod. Romney will give help the ticket on economical issues, enthusiasm, and geographical advantages.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama are not known for their sound economic policies. Most polls have indicated that the economy is the number one issue in this election. Mitt Romney’s strong suit is his economic prowess. He has devoted his entire life to our nation’s economy. He has been successfully economically in both the political and business arenas. John McCain can use Mitt Romney’s economic savvy to give credibility to his economic platform.

Mitt Romney can bring the needed enthusiasm to take on Barack Obama. A lot of the grass roots of this party supported Romney in the primary and feel like they have someone who is not conservative enough for them. Mitt could help rally the troops without damaging McCain’s maverick image because conservatives view Romney as a conservative and moderates view him as a moderate. He has shown that his business savvy translates directly to successful fundraising. His advisors have claimed that he could raise 50 million in 60 days.   Now that Barack Obama has turned down public financing, money is a huge issue. Mitt Romney also brings some youth and vigor to the campaign. He can give the ticket the shot in the arm that it needs.

Mitt Romney can help the ticket in states where McCain is lagging. The race is close and leaning slightly democrat in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, and Florida. Romney can significantly help in these states. He has done very well with blue collar workers, Mormons, and economic conservatives. These states have a large number of those demographics.

Mitt Romney can give McCain’s campaign the shot in the arm that it needs. He will help make the economic conservatives feel better about voting for McCain. He will help deliver states that are on the border. Mitt Romney will also help bolster the fundraising effort. McCain/Romney 2008 is a winning combination.

Political Resumes:

The following is to show how incomparable the nominees’ resumes are.  John McCain is qualified and experienced.  Obama has accomplished nothing in his life besides winning elections.

John McCain (condensed version):

Graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958

McCain requested a combat assignment so he could put his life on the line for his country despite the fact that there was a strong chance he would lose his life.

While on a bombing mission over North Vietnam, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war for 6
years.

McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was at the epicenter of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded

The North Vietnamese wanted release McCain to make it look like to other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.  McCain said no and was tortured horribly for turning down release.  This shows he is able to put his country before himself.

Commanded a large squadron of ships

US congressman for 26 years

He is a Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee.

Member of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs.

Showed an ability to negotiate with people who disagree with him by joining Senator Feingold to pass Campaign Finance Reform despite fellow republicans claiming the bill was not conservative enough.  He showed he could put his country before his party allegiances.  This is something Barack Obama has never done.

He spearheaded the line-item veto bill.

Chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee

He stood up against Rumsfeld’s Iraq strategy despite resistance from his party.  The change in strategy that resulted is credited for major progress made in the war.

Worked with many democrats to stop the disastrous Harriet Miers nomination by George Bush.  His actions led to the appointment of Roberts and Alito.  They are two of the strongest constitutionalists on the court.

Spearheaded legislation to stop torture of prisoners of war

Spearheaded legislation against Bush and the rest of his party including HMO reform, climate change, and gun legislation

Spearheaded an effort to reduce spending.  

Spearheaded effort to stop earmarks.  He has been nicknamed the sheriff for the amount of earmarks that he has stopped.

He has voted with his party only 63% of the time showing he is willing to put the country ahead of political parties.


Barack Obama (expanded version to make it look like he's done something):

Did cocaine and marijuana in his youth.

State senator for 7 years.

Here is a list of his accomplishments while he was in the state senate:

Voted “present” 130 times rather than actually voting to represent his constituency on issues like partial-birth abortion, gun control, and the prohibition of strip clubs.

(the end of accomplishment list)

US Senator for less than one term:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, but has yet to attend a meeting on Afghanistan.

Has not spearheaded ANY legislation.

Voted with his party 97% of the time according to an independent study (the highest percentage of any senator).

Talks well.

In 2004, George Bush made a huge push for allowing private accounts in the place of portions of the social security benefits.  The liberal democrats stuck it to Bush and shot down.  However, in Ohio, the Democrats’ largest voting groups, the Ohio Federation of Teachers is paying into their own privatized social security program.  They may opt out of paying social security and pay into a privatized retirement plan.  They receive the following retirement benefits:

Retirement Income
Unreduced benefits are determined by multiplying your years of credited service by 2.2% of your final average salary for the first 30 years of service, plus 2.5% for the 31st year, 2.6% for the 32nd year, 2.7% for the 33rd year and so on, until 100% of the final average salary is reached.
With 35 or more years of contributing service, the first 31 years are multiplied by 2.5% of your final average salary; then the escalating formula described above is used.
If you retire with 30 years of service under the current formula, you will receive 66% of your final average salary as an annual retirement benefit. With 35 years, you will receive 88.5% of your final average salary.

Cost-of-living Adjustment (COLA)
You will receive a 3% cost-of-living increase each year, calculated on your original benefit.

I want their deal. Why can they opt out of social security, but I cannot? Why is it that the very people that were elected by the teachers' unions stalled the privatization of social security despite the fact that their supporters are receiving it?

My generation will not receive a penny from social security.  We should reconsider a plan similar to the one that is working for the Ohio teachers’ union.  Despite anything you may hear from teachers, they have it good.  They have a sweet deal.  I will get a 0% return on my investment.  They receive a majority of their salary annually after working 30 years of service.  I want that deal.  America needs that deal.

With the skyrocketing energy costs, energy policies are coming front and center in this election. Barack Obama has taken the wrong side of three major issues. John McCain has gotten it right on nuclear power, ethanol, and oil drilling.

John McCain has pledged to build 45 nuclear power plants by 2030 if he is elected president. This would be a 50% increase. Barack Obama said that he does not believe nuclear power is part of the solution to our energy problems. These are two starkly different stances on nuclear power. Nuclear power produces 0 carbon emissions. It does not require any fossil fuels. This would also free up our coal resources to export overseas to help offset the trade deficit.

John McCain has come out against the further subsidizing of ethanol while Obama has come out in support of such subsidies. The subsidies break down to about a dollar a gallon of gas. It takes over 450 pounds of corn to fill an SUV gas tank. Sure, this does not require imports of oil; however it does raise the prices of food. High fructose corn syrup is in just about everything that we eat. Therefore, every time the supply of corn for consumption is shrunk, the price of food increases.

John McCain is absolutely correct with his support for drilling domestically. ANWR alone could pump out one million barrels of oil each day. We import 10 million barrels of foreign oil each day. This would offset that need by 10%. If we expand this to offshore drilling, we could offset a large amount of our foreign dependence. There would be more supply of oil in the country. This would lower the price of oil significantly. This would reduce our dependence on foreign oil significantly. This is the solution to our problem while we continue to develop technologies like the hydrogen fuel cell. Barack Obama does not even want to consider this. He is telling the country that he would rather stick to his partisan policies than help our country’s oil problems.

John McCain and Barack Obama differ on three major energy issues. Barack Obama is taking positions that will destroy our nation’s economy. John McCain is standing up for the American people. Barack Obama is standing up for his environmental lobbyists. John McCain is standing up for the American economy. Barack Obama is standing up for the economic policies that derailed this country under Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama is standing up for policies that will return this country to the dark days of the 1970’s. John McCain is standing up for economic policies that will assure that the United States will remain the global voice for freedom, hope, and prosperity.

A video has surfaced from Bush Sr's time as President.  Al Gore goes on and on about "Bush Sr. ignoring the terrorist ties to Iraq."  It's funny how when George W Bush takes on the policy that Al Gore himself preached in that lecture, he criticizes Bush.  His entire party criticizes Bush.  The Democratic Party = The Hypocritical Party.  It doesn't matter what the right thing to do is... their policy is just "I'm against what he said."  What will they do when they have to develop their own policies?  Let's hope that we won't know the answer to that question until well after 2008.


Click here to see the video

Definately not... but here is an excerpt from FDR's speech to the American people on June 6, 1944.  He is often praised as the best president of all time by many democrats.  Why can they not embrace the religious nature of the American population as he did?  Can you ever imagine this being said today?

My Fellow Americans:

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - June 6, 1944

I ask you this question.  After 7 years of George W. Bush, who would you vote for in 2008 if it was Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush?  I would argue that Bill Clinton is more conservative than our old friend W.  What has George W. Bush really done that is conservative?  He cut taxes in his first term without cutting any spending.  That was great... but what else has he done?  I can list several things that he's done that have been very liberal:
1) No Child Left Behind
2) Campaign Finance Reform
3) Recent Global Warming Initiative
4) Fighting a politically correct war in Iraq and Afghanistan
5) Immigration Reform
6) Deficit Spending
7) The Department of Homeland Security

I can list several conservative things that Clinton did:
1) Reform Welfare (Bush has increased it by 5.5% in his presidency)
2) The Defense of Marriage Act
3) Limiting Homosexuality in the military with "Don't ask don't tell" (I know it's not the best solution... but it at least limits it)
4) Balanced Budget

George Bush talks about how he "sticks up for family values."  He has not done anything to actually advance that agenda.  He pushed for an amendment banning gay marriage.  We all know that's not ever going to happen.  He talked about privatizing social security.  He talked about reducing the size of government.  He talked about a lot of things.

Sure Clinton was weak on defense, but so was Bush until 911 happened.  Clinton worked hard to run a balanced budget and reform our most burdensome socialist scheme, welfare.  Reagan often said that government is not the solution, it is the problem.  Clinton lived by this slogan while Bush tries to solve every problem with more government.  I would vote for Clinton over Bush without even thinking twice about it. 

Without raising taxes Mitt Romney closed a $3 billion budget deficit his first year in office with a Massachusetts heavily Democrat legislature. Each year, Mitt Romney filed a balanced budget without raising taxes. By eliminating waste, streamlining government, and enacting comprehensive economic reforms to help spur growth, Governor Romney helped the state achieve a surplus totaling nearly $1 billion in 2005.

He has a record of being fiscally responsible.  He has shown he can do this even with a liberal legislature.  He got a bill on his desk that was a 250 million dollar tax increase.  He went to the legislature and said that he would send a notice to the entire state indicating how much of a tax increase they would have had if he chose not to veto it.  He also said he would make who was responsible for passing it know to the whole state if they did not accept his amendment to the bill.  His amendment was a 250 million dollar tax refund.  They immediately passed the refund and Mitt Romney signed the 250 million dollar tax refund into law.  He pledges the same dedication to spending in the federal government.  America needs Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is the second coming of Ronald Reagan.  Mitt Romney can make a positive impact on this country that will effect many generations to come.  He is what is necessary to return the GOP to Ronald Reagan conservatism.

Mitt Romney is an excellent communicator.  As demonstrated by the first debate, Mitt Romney is a superb communicator.  The rest of his competition does not even come close to his level.  Seeing is believing with Mitt Romney.  He has a presence that I have not seen in the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan.  This ability to communicate will most certainly help him advance the conservative movement.

Mitt Romney is a conservative governor from a blue state.  One could argue that Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the country.  Mitt Romney managed to lower taxes and spur economic growth despite a liberal congress.  Ronald Reagan experienced these same challenges.  It really takes a leader to be able to advance a conservative agenda in a liberal environment.  For this reason, I feel Mitt Romney could reinvigorate the conservative movement in this country.

 

Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan are full of optimism.  One of the biggest problems in our country right now is the inherent negativity in all mediums.  The following is an excerpt from the fist GOP debate of this election cycle:

Moderator: Governor Romney, Daniel Duchovnik (ph) from Walnut Creek, California, wants to know: What do you dislike most about America?

Romney: Gosh. I love America. I'm afraid I'm going to be at a loss for words because America for me is not just our rolling mountains and hills and streams and great cities. It's the American people.

And the American people are the greatest people in the world. What makes America the greatest nation in the world is the heart of the American people: hardworking, innovative, risk-taking, God- loving, family-oriented American people.

It's that optimism we thank Ronald Reagan for. Thank you, Mrs. Reagan, for opening up this place in his memory for us. It is that optimism about this great people that makes this the greatest nation on earth.

 

Mitt Romney will be able to do as Reagan did and bring back patriotism into our country.  We live in the best country in the world.  There is no reason to let it become anything less than that.

Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan alike understand that government is NOT the solution, IT IS THE PROBLEM.  He has a strong record of strong economic conservative principles.  The following are excerpts from Mitt Romney’s exploratory committee’s page:

Balanced Budgets. Without raising taxes or increasing debt, Governor Romney closed a $3 billion budget deficit his first year in office with a heavily Democrat legislature. Each year, Governor Romney filed a balanced budget without raising taxes. By eliminating waste, streamlining government, and enacting comprehensive economic reforms to help spur growth, Governor Romney helped the state achieve a surplus totaling nearly $1 billion in 2005.

Lower Taxes. In the bluest of blue states, Governor Romney kept taxes down. Under his leadership, the state abolished a retroactive capital gains tax that would have forced nearly 50,000 taxpayers to pay additional taxes and fees. 

The Federal government must stop its borrowing and spending binge. The debt is a burden on our economy, our currency, our foreign policy, and our future. This is beyond pork barrel spending. We must address entitlement programs - not just to save money - but to give Americans confidence in their future.

Governor Romney: "Every legislator and politician knows this spending can't be justified, so why do they do it ? Because it gets politicians praised -- and re-elected. There's no courage involved in spending more money. Drawing a line on spending is hard and fraught with criticism. When I vetoed $458 million of excessive spending in the budget this spring, I knew that community newspapers across the Commonwealth would decry my elimination of local pet projects. And, I knew that the Legislature would over ride most of my vetoes. In fact, they over rode all of them, to a chorus of community acclaim. But someone has to say no."
^{(Boston Globe, September 12, 2006)}

 

Governor Romney: "I don't want to add entitlements. I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs."
^{(Boston Globe, January 27, 2006)}

 

America's tax code is a labyrinth that imposes an enormous and unnecessary burden on our citizens and employers. Keeping taxes low and simplifying the code will grow the economy and enhance our competitiveness.

 

Governor Romney: "I said no to a tax hike; raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs. I also said no to more borrowing; borrowing just shifts our problems to the backs of our kids . . . Instead, I went after waste, inefficiency, duplication, and patronage."
^{(Boston Globe, October 24, 2005)}

 

Governor Romney: "It is fundamentally unfair to tax people retroactively. If we are to keep faith with the taxpayers of Massachusetts, we need to correct the constitutional error that occurred here."
^{(Governor Mitt Romney Press Release, 2005)}

 

Mitt Romney handles this difficult pointed question very well and points out his dedication and understanding about the separation of church and state:

Moderator: Governor Romney, what do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny Communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?

Romney: I don't say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They can do whatever the heck they want.

(Laughter)

Romney: Roman Catholic bishops are in a private institution, a religion. And they can do whatever they want in a religion. America doesn't...

Moderator: Do you see that as interference in public life?

Romney: Well, I can't imagine a government telling a church who can have Communion in their church. We have a separation of church and state. It's served us well in this country.

This is a nation, after all, that wants a leader that's a person of faith, but we don't choose our leader based on which church they go to.

This is a nation which also comes together -- we unite over faith and over the right of people to worship as they choose.

The people we're fighting, they're the ones who divide over faith and decide matters of this nature in the public forum.

This is a place where we celebrate different religions and different faiths.

This should be interesting to see how the liberal media reports this.  Darfur genocide has been one of the common battle cries for the democratic party.  George Bush has shown his disproval for what is going on there and is threatening sanctions.

"Bush said Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir must: Allow the deployment of a full U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force; reach out to rebel leaders; end support for the violent Janjaweed militia; and permit humanitarian aid to pass to the region."
Link to article

Will the liberals admit Bush is doing something right?  Liberals often preach their "open-mindedness."  However, I feel that the past 7 years have really shown that they are not open minded at all.  Even the most conservative of Republicans will admit that Clinton did some things right.  He handled the conflict in Kosovo properly.  He also reformed welfare.  Why is it that democrats refuse to admit that George Bush has done anything right?  Don't get me wrong... I do not agree with a lot of what W does.  However, that said, he has done a lot of good things for our country.

The democrats position is against whatever Bush says.  It does not matter if Bush comes out in support of their ideals.  They will alter their stance just so that they can disagree with him.  This is shown by their flip flop on Iraq.  They kept saying that he didn't send enough troops and that his strategy was poor.  George Bush came up with a new strategy and sent more troops.  Now they are against more troops.  MAKE UP YOUR MIND!  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  The democrats have consistently called for action in Darfur.  Now George Bush is addressing this issue.  Will the democrats admit that George Bush did something right or will they just flip flop their stance on this issue to be able to say Bush is wrong?

How can Edwards say, "I could not disagree more strongly" while he didn't even care enough to show up for the vote on this issue.  As seen in the Senate Voting Record.

This really bothers me.  This issue was clearly not important to him before.  Now that this issue is part of the party line, he "could not disagree more strongly."   He can disagree more strongly.  He could have disagreed strongly enough to show up and vote "Nay" on this bill.

"He [Imus] opened up the issue, but we have to look within our own culture," said Newble, who is African-American. "Some rappers talk the same way he did and they think it's OK. It's not OK to degrade or disrespect our people or our women. We have to look within ourselves to make a conscious change in our music in the things we say. Radio stations, TV stations, BET [Black Entertainment Network] and everyone has to step up and become more responsible." - cleveland.com

I read that and one thing came to my mind.  That makes sense.  Why is it ok for African American rappers to disrespect their own demographic?  Imus is NOT the only problem.  There needs to be wide and sweeping social change.  It needs to start from within.

The economy seems to be overcoming the housing and loan problems.  Data released shows the unemployment has reached 4.5%!  According to economic theory, this is statistical full employment.  The effects of Bush's tax cuts appear to be lasting.  How can we sustain this?  George Bush and congress need to get together and come up with a plan to cut pork barrel spending.  We can then level off our deficit spending budget and maybe even cut more taxes.  We also need to address social security.  We need to privatize social security.  This will be better for America in the short and long term.

America has a problem. Not everyone can get health insurance. I have a plan that takes a common sense approach to health coverage in America. Our nation can solve this problem without having to create an inefficient government program. In order to best understand my plan, one must understand my perspective as a college student, why government run universal health care cannot work, and my plan to fix America’s health insurance system.

First of all, one must view this problem through my perspective in order to best understand my thinking. I am 21 years old. I am a college student working towards an undergraduate degree in engineering. I also have a chronic medical condition called Crohn’s disease that requires a bimonthly IV treatment. This treatment can cost in upwards of $7,000 dollars an infusion. This boils down $42,000 a year. Right now insurance covers it. However, I will no longer be eligible for my parents’ medical insurance once I reach the age of 23 years old. I will not graduate until I am 24. There is a program called COBRA that allows me to extend that coverage, but one can only utilize this program for two years. This means that I would have a lapse in coverage if I were to pursue a more advanced degree. I cannot afford a $40,000 education and $42,000 in medical bills, so a graduate degree is completely out of the question for me. My problems would not stop at the end of that lapse in coverage. Assuming I can somehow come up with the money to pay for my treatment throughout a graduate degree program, after six months off of insurance, my Crohn’s disease will be a pre-existing condition. This means that even when I graduate and get insured, I will have to wait a year for my new insurance to even begin to cover any medical expenses related to the disease.

Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are always talking up a universal health care program. That sounds so perfect. Under their plan everyone would have free medical insurance. No one would have to pay for any prescriptions, hospital visits, or surgeries. This sounds great to the casual observer; however, upon further examination, it is far less beneficial than it sounds. First of all, taxes would have to be raised astronomically to fund such a program. This would place even more burden on domestic businesses where it is already difficult to compete in a global economy with current taxes and regulations. It would be even more difficult to compete because more taxes would further increase the cost for product development and production. More importantly, a universal health care system would disrupt the most powerful medical system in the world. Right now, hospitals are competing to provide the most advanced treatments to draw customers. If a socialized health care system is put in place, competition would be replaced with government regulations. This would greatly hinder future advances in medicine. Most importantly, this would result in patients receiving the cheapest treatments and not the best treatments. This is clear in the treatment of Crohn’s disease in Canada where the health care system is socialized. The government will not pay for the regular IV treatments that I receive. They will only pay for much cheaper treatments like prednisone. While prednisone is only twenty dollars, it can destroy one’s bones and liver. It also can lead to extreme anger, mood swings, weight gain, acne, glaucoma, ulcers, abdominal pain, cataracts, insomnia, horrible infections, diabetes, and hypertension. Even with all those side effects, it only works in some cases. In my case, my body did not respond to it at all. With the treatment that I am currently receiving, Remicade, I have been nearly symptom free for almost five years. Some people from Canada are so desperate to get Remicade treatments that they travel to the Cleveland Clinic to receive treatments at their own expense. This is not acceptable. I cannot even imagine having to live without my medication. My life would be absolutely miserable.

I have a plan that could fix the problem with health care without having to socialize it. The concept is quite simple. The biggest problem with America’s health insurance system is the necessity to be part of a group to get affordable coverage. As a college student, once I am off my parents’ coverage, I have nowhere to turn to. Even if I wanted to pay a premium rate, I could not get coverage. My plan would effectively get rid of that problem. The expected outcome is to allow United States citizens to purchase an individual, affordable health insurance plan through a private company. In order to accomplish that, the federal or state congress will first determine minimal standards for two types of coverage: minimal coverage and premium coverage. After that is set, they will set up a linear tax cut system. This system would provide a certain amount of tax relief to health insurance companies who provide individual plans that meet the standards set. The system would be linear because the amount of tax relief would be proportional to the number of people insured. This would encourage competition between the insurance companies to receive the maximum tax break. Competition ensures the best value for the consumers. It is also necessary for the government to require that the company offer the two plans for the same price to all members. This will help to ensure that people with chronic conditions will be able to afford coverage as well. It is necessary that a dialog take place to determine what level of tax cuts are necessary for the insurance companies to participate.

This plan would create and utilize the same capitalistic environment that has made our country such a great and powerful nation. This would make insurance companies compete for tax breaks. Any time companies are competing, the consumer wins. This would allow any citizen of the United States of America to get health coverage at an affordable rate without the creation of an inefficient government program. With the available coverage, the life expectancy and overall health of our nation will likely improve. The tax cuts provided to the insurance companies would also help to improve economic conditions. It would put money back into our economy to help create economic growth. The most important thing about this plan is that all of these results could be achieved without disrupting the operation of our globally superior medical institutions.