Global Warming?

“Global Warming” or “Climate Change” has become the rallying cry of the environmental movement. We now face massive “Cap and Trade” taxes. In the next few days or weeks I am going to try express the science and the economics of this issue and how this issuet could impact our lives.

The theory of global warming centers around Carbon Dioxide being a green house gas. A greenhouse gas is “a gas that can trap heat in the atmosphere.” All chemicals absorb energy in a range on the Electromagnetic Spectrum. The gases that are considered greenhouse gases absorb light that lies within the infrared area of the spectrum. The molecules absorb the heat that is reflected from the surface and release the heat shortly thereafter returning a portion back to the earth. This is the greenhouse effect; this process is necessary to keep our planet warm and livable.

The electromagnetic spectrum is also how we as humans determine colors. An item that is red or green reflect a certain portion of the scale that we humans can see. We cannot see the infrared spectrum emitted by these gases but they do emit the radiation all the same.

The main types of greenhouse gases are as such

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
• Flourinated gases or CFC's (any organic compound composed of carbon, flourine, chlorine and hydrogen)
• Water Vapor

CDE or Global Warming Potential (GWP) for the three main greenhouse gases

Carbon Dioxide = 1

Methane = 25

Nitrous Oxide = 298

Water Vapor = Varies on temperature

( http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/co2equivalents )

This is a unit of measurement that basically says Methane is 25 times stronger as an atmospheric warming agent than Carbon Dioxide per molecule.

The Earth's atmosphere is composed about as such

Gas Name	Chemical Formula	Percent Volume
Nitrogen	N2	78.08%
Oxygen	O2	20.95%
*Water	H2O	0 to 4%
Argon	Ar	0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide	CO2	0.0360%
Neon	Ne	0.0018%
Helium	He	0.0005%
*Methane	CH4	0.00017%
Hydrogen	H2	0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide	N2O	0.00003%
*Ozone	O3	0.000004%

* variable gases

( http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html )

The main global warming gases represent a small portion of the total atmosphere, with Water Vapor comprising the largest portion of any greenhouse gas.

Part 1 Conclusions:

This part mainly focused on the theory and science behind the greenhouse gases.

One question that I could not find an answer to is the “Global Warming Potential” of Water Vapor for some reason the government sites just brush off the effect of Water Vapor; even though Water vapor is recognize as having a significant effect on the greenhouse effect. Most sites acknowledge more research is needed. I agree; without this information no collusion should be made on the theory of Global Warming.

Part 2 will focus on how or if greenhouse gases are warming the Earth.

Utah GOP Failure

I would like you to compare these two websites. A picture is worth a thousand words.

This first is the Utah GOP site http://www.utgop.org/

The second is the Utah Democrat site http://www.utdemocrats.org/resources/

I do not even know where to start, the Democrat site destroys the GOP site in every aspect. It looks better, it is easier to use, and the Democrat site has 1,000 times the information the GOP's site does. I was under the assumption that the GOP was in the majority in this state. By looking at the website it doesn't look that way.

So the GOP state website is poor let's look at Salt Lake County, a place where the GOP has had major setbacks.

GOP http://slcogop.com/

It's better than the states (that's not saying much) But very few updates, no delegate emails.

Democrats http://www.slcountydems.com/

Not as nice as the state website, but still better the the GOP's in many ways.

Even on a county level, the Dem's in Utah have the advantage on the web. I have heard many GOP leaders wonder why they loose early voting and the youth vote, it isn't a surprise looking at the pitiful effort put into the websites. The GOP posts no events, send no emails, they simply do not attempt to contact their constituents. I am a State Delegate for the Utah GOP and I hear nothing from the party. This is why Salt Lake is lost, the GOP has earned it.

The GOP may actually need staffers, people who work and do things for the party. Not pay people to do moronic “I can” feel good campaigns. Campaigns have changed in a couple ways, and the GOP needs to move on.  

Resurrected for a Moment

The Pyrenean ibex was brought back from extinction only briefly recently, but for a moment the species was not extinct. The Ibis has been extinct since 2000, a tissue sample was used to clone the animal. The animal lived only a short time because of lung complications. It is a major step, an extinct animal has been cloned.

One can only wonder what policy issues will arise in the coming years, especially when much older extinct animals are attempted to be cloned.  

Paleontological Resource Preservation Act

The Paleontological Resource Preservation Act, is back and it never seems to die. They have hidden this bill within Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 (S. 22), which does a lot more than just change paleontological resources.

             The Paleontological Resource Preservation Act has all the same problems it has had in the past and will do nothing but hurt paleontology. What is or is not legal is vague at best. Take Section 7 (b) “False Labeling Offenses- A person may not make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any paleontological resource excavated or removed from Federal lands.” Knowingly false or accidentally, I sure hope knowingly with the intent to deceive.

             In Section 5 (b) (1) “the applicant is qualified to carry out the permitted activity.” What makes someone qualified? The bill does not say; it is up to the discretion of the BLM. I am worried that it is possible certain people/organizations may not be determined ‘qualified’ for unknown reasons. Some of the best paleontologists do not have degrees (Jack Horner), and some institutions may not meet some arbitrary standard.

             In Section 5 (c) (2) “the paleontological resource and copies of associated records will be preserved for the public in an approved repository, to be made available for scientific research and public education,” this creates a problem with storage. I have been to the basement of the University of Utah’s Natural history Museum and I have seen the problems archaeological resources create. The institution must keep archaeological resources forever, due to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979.  Many of the items they curate have no scientific value, but must keep them forever. The museum doesn’t have room to show all the items in  displays. That is why natural history museums are more prevalent than archaeological museums. (Note the lack of private museums with archaeological resources) There must be a way for the items to be sold/traded to other repositories and perhaps at some point be determine if the item has little or no scientific/public value and can be sold to the general populace.

             In Section 8 (2) (a) in reference to the penalties states, “The scientific or fair market value, whichever is greater, of the paleontological resource involved, as determined by the Secretary.” How can there be a market value for something that isn’t allowed to be sold? How can anyone determine that? Scientific value can only be determined by market value, and market value is removed by his bill. What will happen is the Secretary will make up a number they perceive the item to be worth and fine the person that amount.

            Here is the main issue; the penalties will hurt the science of paleontology. Amateurs have helped this field more than any other scientific field I can think of. Let’s do a scenario. A family goes hiking and their child finds a bone, and the family takes that bone to a museum. The museum than in turn accepts that bone and is told the location of that bone for possible study. Every person, from the child to the parents to the museum could face charges. The child for removing the bone, the parents for transporting the bone and the museum for taking the bone; every one of them would be participating in an illegal act.

             There are good areas in this bill. One important aim (in my opinion) is to keep the site location a secret form the general populace. This curtails those with malicious intent from stealing and damaging the site. Specifying the property rights on who has authority will help. The situation needs help, however this bill however is not the answer.

            Paleontological resources embody a different area of public goods than most public goods. Fossils are a public good but their value to the public  only exists when the item has been disturbed. 

 

 

 

              

$825 Billion Dollars

An $825 Billion Dollar stimulus package, with $275 billion dollars in tax cuts has been proposed by Nancy Pelosi.  

 I have a very slight question about this, how do we pay for this?

 Cutting taxes while increasing spending is a tax increase in the future. We will pay it directly through higher taxes, tariffs, through inflation, and interest paid on the borrowed money. The money has to come from somewhere and sometime.

When I get my hands on the Bill, I will write more.

 

Deseret News

I have an opinion piece in Deseret News today. 

Here is it 

It is a sad day when a law must be made to protect constitutional rights. The Fairness Doctrine violates the First Amendment by infringing on the right of free speech and free press. No law should ever be crafted by the government to force any person or business to say what the government wants them to.

Sadly, to protect these rights, a bill is necessary. The rights to free press and free speech are the most precious rights we hold dear. If someone does not prefer a certain slant of a program then that person has the right to change that channel.

Casey Jackson

West Jordan

Special Interests in Extinction Theories

In what has been an ongoing debate about what whipped out the most of the mega fauna in the America’s 12,900 years, there may be new evidence. There is new evidence that a cosmic impact could have caused the extinction. This theory has been broached a few times and with many different theories. What has been unique is watching the argument unfold and the different special interests fighting this battle. Global Warming theorists, over-kill hypothesis, and disease seem to have taken a special interest in this fight.

 

            The ends of the ice age occurred around the time give or take a few thousand years; some say C02 has caused this. Others say no,  but to this day we still cannot determine why this extinction was so prevalent in North America.

 

            The main theory and perhaps the most ridiculous is the overkill hypothesis.  Clovis people came to North America; they went extinct too and were here only about 300 years. This theory has become dogma, it is many textbooks, but is disputed. Here is why I highly doubt the overkill hypothesis.

 

1.      Humans hunted big game in Africa for thousands of years, all the mega fauna did not go extinct in that time. We still have elephants/rhinos/hippos today. Only buffalo/moose  survived the Pleistocene mega fauna extinction of North America.

2.       The Clovis people were only here for about 300 years when the extinction occurred. That's a very fast timeline for extinction.

3.      Small game didn’t die; Human likely still hunted those too.

4.      The Clovis people went extinct with the rest of the mega fauna.

 

Different groups want this extinction to fit their mold; they get grants and receive credibility if it does. Did rapid climate change cause this? Perhaps, climate changes can be devastating on life, but climate change is a broad term that has many causes. Hyper-disease is interesting but the lack of small fauna extinctions throws a wrench in that theory. The cosmic impact has merit, there is some evidence for it. Most of North America was covered in ice that could have absorbed the impact and melted, so now crater may exist. (Could this have caused the circulation shift in the Atlantic?) Time will tell and I hope political strategy won’t dictate this discussion like it has. I hope good science triumphs which it is beginning to look like it might.

Is it the party or the one issue?

I have heard the phrase that person is a “RINO” or a “DINO,” this is an attack on that person on a political basis. The Phrases mean “Republican in Name Only” or “Democrat in Name Only.” These phrases assume there is some sort of philosophy that makes up the major political parties. In theory there is, but not in practice because of a few issues that often allow people to be labeled as a “RINO” or a “DINO.”

I will go over what each party probably should be focused on based on their platforms. The Democrats are in general a party of government management and intervention, and the Republicans are the party of limiting government intervention. However that is only on the economic side of issues. We now have a 'social' side in which Republicans prefer government intervention and Democrats reduce government intervention. Most of these social issues cannot be addressed easily or at all with data, they are moral choices. The two which have changed the face of American politics, are gay marriage and abortion. Democrats are often pro abortion and pro gay marriage. Republicans are often against both.

Those two issues have allowed the muddling of the political landscape, if you favor one you must be a Democrat. If you oppose one you must be a Republican. These two issues have allowed for the muddling of the parties, have allowed those who support just these two issues to be apart of the particular party. Economics has been lost; it is now all social morals. With morals one side believes they are right for any number of reasons (religion, experience etc...), but evidence does not sway their opinion. This is OK, moral decision are important and personal, but should they rule the political scene?

Let's say you are someone who believes government is more of a hindrance and gets in the way of private liberties and entrepreneurship. However you believe that Gay's should be allotted the same rights as everyone else. Well you are obviously not a Democrat, they favor intervention so you turn to Republicans but you could be cast out as a RINO over this one moral issue. You agree 99% with the conclusion of small government, but you have a different background on this one issue.

Let's say someone believes gay marriage will destroy marriage and abortion in any form is murder. They also believe the government can be micromanaged the economy and jobs to do ‘good’ in their opinion. Because the moral obligation is often higher they will go Republican, but that person has no care for a small non interventionist government. Are they a 'RINO?'

 

The same scenarios can be used to describe such a situation in the Democratic Party also. I say these moral decisions should be beyond party lines. One party cannot and should not be a party of morals. That one party will feel they are better than the other party, because they believe they are better people. Not just people who have come to a different conclusion. We as Americans believe in Liberties, the freedom to do what we want as long as we do not restrict another person’s freedom.

 

Here is my bias, the few people who read my blog may differ with me and this may be conceived as a risk on my part, but one I felt I had to do. I do support gay marriage, and I do not have a conclusion on abortion yet (I do strongly support the morning after pill). Am I a 'RINO' for currently working with select Republicans? Do I not belong in that Party? Moral choices are very close to a person’s heart, they are often beyond science, and they are usually beyond evidence. I ask these two moral choices are a personal one, accept them in a person in a party. Ask their philosophy of what government is. I do not urge anyone to support someone with different morals than them just try to understand that different morals exist.

Too true

Rent Seeking

In an excellent article about Gordan Tullock, the basis of 'Rent-Seeking' is explained. Understanding this principle in my humble opinion is the most important concept of policy/politics there is. 

We as a society blame the lobbyists for corruptions and special benefits, but they exist for a reason. If they couldn't get 'rents' they wouldn't seek them. If lobbyists don't get money they would be considered wasteful and inefficient, but lobbying can reap benefits of billions. The auto indiustry has utlized this and have made out like bandits. As long as there is money and loopholes to be given out there will be people to fight for every last penny and paragraph. 

This is human nature of course, this is a constant not a variable that can be changed. Working with the assumption that people are, in general, self interested. Only when this has been realized than good policy can be written. The Government cannot legislate human nature towards some sort of utopian goal. 

Nationalization

The Unites States Government has a plan to bailout many American banks. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101701505.html?hpid=sec-politics ) The Treasury Department claims they have been given the authority to do so under the recent 700 Billion Dollar Bailout Bill. ( http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/senatebillAYO08C32_xml.pdf ) However is this true? Does the Treasury Department have the power to nationalize banks, is it legal? Constitutional?

There is only one court case in American history that has dealt with nationalization. During the Korean War there was fear of a steel strike that in theory could hurt the war effort. President Harry S. Truman ordered the Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize the steel mills and “directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with his regulations and directions.” Claiming the power was vested to him by the “Aggregate Powers” that a president can use during a time of war. President Truman reported these events to the Congress, but Congress took no action. ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0343_0579_ZS.html )

The case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer came from this attempt to nationalize the steel mills. The Supreme court ruled that “There is no statute which expressly or impliedly authorizes the President to take possession of this property as he did here.” Also that the “Authority of the President to issue such an order in the circumstances of this case cannot be implied from the aggregate of his powers under Article II of the Constitution.” Only Congress can grant such authority and the Secretary of Commerce was beyond his granted authority. ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0343_0579_ZS.html )

The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case showed that Congress must grant specific authority in order for any type of power to be used in a nationalization effort. The question is if the Bailout Bill specifically grants the Executive Branch the authority to seize or buy stakes in privately owned banks. The bill states in Section 101 that “The secretary is authorized to to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘‘TARP’’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.” The term “Troubled Assets” is defined as “residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and or any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.” ( http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/senatebillAYO08C32_xml.pdf )

The Bailout Bill also grants the Secretary of Treasury the power to designate financial institutions as agents of the federal government, these agents can than buy assets for the federal government in an effort to conserve costs. Purchases of financial assets are limited to mortgage related assets unless further powers are granted by Congress. This appears to be in compliance with the ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, as long as the institution has troubled mortgage related assets. However, what is considered a troubled or non troubled is completely up to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The constitutionality of nationalization has not been ruled on, the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer ruled on how such authority would need to be given. Not on whether the Constitution grants the authority to the federal government to nationalize a private entity. If the secretary of the Treasury buys bank assets that are not troubled by 'bad mortgages' than it is conceivable to illegal, if the Secretary has not received such authorization from Congress. If such a case occurred there is no precedence currently to predict the outcome.

Keynesian is False

I, Pencil

In these times we must remember how complicated everything really is. We face DC running Detroit, and here is a word of caution from one of my favorite essays. 

"I, Pencil

By Leonard E. Read

I am a lead pencil—the ordinary wooden pencil familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write.

Writing is both my vocation and my avocation; that’s all I do.

You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with, my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery —more so than a tree or a sunset or even a flash of lightning. But, sadly, I am taken for granted by those who use me, as if I were a mere incident and without background. This supercilious attitude relegates me to the level of the commonplace. This is a species of the grievous error in which mankind cannot too long persist without peril. For, the wise G. K. Chesterton observed, “We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders.”

I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that’s too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple.

Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn’t it? Especially when it is realized that there are about one and one-half billion of my kind produced in the U.S.A. each year.

Pick me up and look me over. What do you see? Not much meets the eye—there’s some wood, lacquer, the printed labeling, graphite lead, a bit of metal, and an eraser."

What is Patriotism?

What is Patriotism?

Is it a pin? Faith to ones country? Allegiance to stand by ones nation no matter? Support a war?

No. Here is what I think liberty is

"The realization of the liberties we have, and the acknowledgement of those who suffered to bring us those liberties."

That is what I believe patriotism is.

The Green Sheeple

Haha

Jason Chaffetz Convention Speech

Here is Mr. Chaffetz convention that almost put him over the top.

Jason Chaffetz

Well I won a delegate spot and began volunteering with the Jason Chaffetz campaign. Let me say what an experience this has been to be around all the delegates, and the conventions.

Jason is running in the third congressional district in Utah, trying to knock off incumbent Chris Cannon. It almost happened too, Jason got 59% of the vote and needed 60%, so there is going to be a primary on June 24th. Early voting weekdays from June 10-20th. Call your local county clerks office for more information.

So here we go, knockoff off neocon and send a message to Washington, the status quo is not alright.

Donate we need money to win this.
Visit his website here

http://www.jasonforcongress.com/page/page/5011447.htm

Precinct 3414

I am announcing today March 12th 2008 my candidacy for 3414 District in the state of Utah for one of the two seats for Utah Delegate. The caucuses will be held on March 25th.

It's Legal Tender

Pennies are legal tender. Public schools are government run. They don't have the option not to take it. It violates the constitution. Plain and simple. "The congress has the power to coin legal tender."

Pennies

Plus it freedom of speech. It's political and in a PUBLIC school. Thus it is protected. Disruptive doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if they don't want to count it, they are government and HAVE to take that money. The schools has NO right to suspend those kids, its legal tender and protected speech.

The morons who suspended them should be suspended themselves.

C'mon, real answer please

CBS

Drum,

"the reason I think Ron Paul is a crank is because he wants to repeal the 16th amendment, eliminate the personal income tax, abolish the minimum wage, deep six the Federal Reserve, and return the United States to some kind of weird quasi-gold standard"

Not a single reason as to why he is against these, just he write them off as 'crank.' What a load, someone who can't say why they are against something, either don't know the subject or are just dogmists.

Here he is just lying

"In addition, he thinks paper currency is "fiat money" and apparently believes that we invaded Iraq largely because they wanted to price their oil in Euros."

What, what a load of crap, he's never said that. Invade Iraq for oil maybe, but to defeat the Euro, give me a break. I do have a question, do you Kevin Drum even know what 'fiat money' is? Please use economic principles to say why he is a "crank' not just dogmatic beliefs.

No conseus

Fight the Watermelons (Green on the outside, Red to the core). There is no consensus, and John Stossel is my hero.

Biased Little?

At least CBS news doesn't even try to say they are balanced.

Ron Paul.

Failed

You know it is quite funny when the chicken littles prove the opposite point of view when trying to scare us to death.

California wildfires.

Uh wildfires aren't new.

"Large-scale fires in a western or southeastern state can pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a few weeks as the state's entire motor vehicle traffic does in a year."

But wait, huh? So they linked CO2 in this article to global warming and openly admit that these fires emit more CO2 in three weeks than a the emissions of that states cars?

So, CO2 produced in nature is greater than our production by vehicles and power plants? I have never heard this uttered by Mr. Gore as reason there's more CO2.
(Yes fires have been up in the past 20 years, we think. Poor forest management, or attempted forest management that fails miserably)

Same old non scientific crap.

Wow

Raptors.

What a find, and so many implications. First off we had no idea Dromeasaurs (Raptors) were even in Asia at this time (120 MYA).
Second they were big, bigger than any ever found in Asia.
Third Dromeasaurs traveled to Asia much earlier than thought.
Fourth there were six unique individual tracks, pack behavior, or at least community.
Fifth Dromeasaurs really did hold their big claw toe up.

All I can say is wow, what a discovery.

Spin

Fossil evidence of higher concentrations of Co2 in ancient sea faring animals can show a link between global warming and Carbon Dioxide?

I think not, what a wonderful spin job was done on that article. I'll give them one point, as temperatures go higher CO2 does increase, but it lags by an average of 4-600 years. So yes, as the temperature increases so does Co2 and so will the lack of concentration of "bonds between oxygen-18 and carbon-13." But how in the world does that correlate into CO2= warming, the only possible cause of the warming. This is a grant grab, and ignores all possible and known causes to attempt to get a buck. I am however not sure who is after it the website or the scientists.

"Ancient Fossil Evidence Supports Carbon Dioxide As Driver Of Global Warming"

Great Arcticle

From Time nonetheless too.

Libertarians

Great article that pretty much sums up what Libertarians actually are. Not the psychos most of main stream media has spun.

Federal reserve

Is it just me or do some economists seem OK with the federal reserve? The thing makes no sense, and is very unconstitutional.

Here's the real question how dangerous is it for a person's career to attack the Federal Reserve?

It has come to this....

Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. The NWO wins one, or well controls one.

Fixing Health Care

Hillary Clinton has come up with an idea to fix health care.
Shockingly it involves bigger government and special interest groups winning.
The individual mandate for insurance, which means that every person in order to work has to have health insurance. There is so much wrong with this idea I do no even know where to start.

Well here goes......
1. People without jobs often don't have money to purchase insurance, even if reduced.
2. More people will be paid under the table than ever because of this. (Immigrant workers for example)
3. All the government money will only embolden the current insurers, reduce competition and raise prices.
4. If they(Government) do a price fix than there will be so little choice that those companies that survive will be bureaucracies, and we all know how efficient those are.
5. The insurance companies will have so much more power over people's lives it is concerning.

There is an alternative.

Cato has some ideas that are very good. Here's mine, which are close to Cato's.

1. End all subsidies to insurance companies, allow competition to thrive.
2. Reform the FDA, allow people to choose to take a risk
3. Biotech & pharmaceuticals should have no trade secrets about their drugs. Full disclosure. (Michael Crichton, Next)
4. Patent laws, no one can patent my genome, allow competition in.
5. Remove no risk suing, if your suit is frivolous you pay the courts costs the one you sued, lots of other countries use this system. Add risk, not just a cost on health care. (John Stossel)
6. Remove silly insurance mandate laws. People/companies choose what they want, and if you want it than buy it. Don't impose silly costs on others like hair transplant insurance.
7. Remove legal certifications, we have a shortage of nurses and nurse schools. Some things nurses do, don't need a degree and can be taught. Degrees don't make you more competent. Besides people will usually choose someone who is accredited.

There, there is my plan for health care, seven steps, removes government and special interest and adds accountability. But it is an unlikely scenario since it doesn't make government bigger.