Graves Signs Repeal It! Pledge

Becomes 1st Candidate in GA-09 to agree to repeal Obama Care

State Representative and Republican 9th District congressional candidate Tom Graves (R-Ranger) announced today that he signed the Club for Growth’s Repeal It! pledge agreeing, once elected, to sponsor and support legislation to repeal the Obama health care reform bill.

The Club for Growth launched the Repeal It! pledge program today and Graves’ became one of the first candidates in the nation to sign the pledge and the first candidate in Georgia’s 9th Congressional District.

“President Obama’s and congressional Democrats’ plan for the federal government’s takeover of our health care system will lead to higher taxes on small businesses, higher premiums for families, opens the door for taxpayer-funded abortions and will do nothing to make health care more affordable,” said Graves. “By becoming one of the first candidates in the nation to sign this pledge, Georgians know that I am the conservative who is committed to turning back these liberal policies that are driving this country to the brink of bankruptcy.”

The Repeal It! pledge states:

“I, Tom Graves, hereby pledge to the people of my district (GA-09) upon my election to the U.S. House of Representatives, to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.”

Graves has been outspoken in his opposition to the Democrats’ health plans that passed the House and Senate last year. He has said health care reforms should be Patient-Centered and Patient-Driven to make health care more affordable, portable and accessible and implemented through the free-market, not by expanding and growing government.

Graves released his Patient Centered Patient Driven health care reform principles last year.

The Club for Growth is the nation’s premier free-market, free enterprise group of conservatives and the Club for Growth PAC endorsed Graves’ candidacy last September.

Graves announced earlier this year he would seek the 9th District Congressional seat, which is currently held by Congressman n Deal who is running for Governor.

Graves was the first candidate to be certified 100 percent pro-life by the Georgia Right to Life PAC. He has earned the endorsement of Miss United States 2009 Erin Grizzle, Can-Do Conservatives and conservative author Jonathan Krohn. The Graves campaign is earning the support of conservatives throughout the 9th District, overwhelmingly won the only two straw polls and leads all candidates in fundraising for the election cycle from over 1,110 contributors. The campaign continues to have the largest online presence of any candidate in the congressional race, has over 400 grassroots volunteers and is organized in all 15 counties of the district.

***

Graves, who is in his fourth term representing House District 12, was first elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 2002. He has chaired numerous subcommittees, served in several leadership positions and been recognized statewide as a conservative leader. He received a 2009 “National Legislator of the Year” from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a 2009 “Guardian of Small Business” Award from the National Federation of Independent Business, the 2009 “Legislator of the Year” Award from the Georgia Retail Association, the 2009 “Legislator of the Year” from the 9th Congressional District of Georgia and was nationally recognized as the “Legislative Entrepreneur of the Year Award” by the Freedom Works Foundation for his tireless effort to stem the tide of expansive government and reduce the tax burden on Georgians. Georgia Trend named Graves to its 2009 “40 under 40, Georgia’s Best and the Brightest.”

Graves grew up in White, Georgia and graduated from the University of Georgia, where he earned a Bachelors of Business Administration in Finance. Graves is a small businessman, past member of the Gordon County Board of Elections and an active member of the Gordon County Chamber of Commerce. He is married to Julie, a native of Marietta, and the couple has three children, JoAnn, John and Janey. They attend the Belmont Baptist Church in Calhoun where Graves is an ordained Deacon.
---
Community News You Can Use
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage
www.ReadMyLipstickNetwork.com
Twitter: @readmylipstick
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
www.Hummingbird-Hollow.com
Twitter: @hhpotterystudio
---

A Health Care bill without verification is "a toothless tiger," Deal says

As the U.S. Senate takes up the debate on Health Care, Congressman Nathan Deal is urging the U.S. Senate to include verification of citizenship in their version of the bill.

"We have seen indications that the Senate wants to include language requiring U.S. citizenship," said Deal. "But without a requirement of verification, this is a toothless tiger."

A Republican candidate for governor, Deal was the author of a 2005 law which required verification of citizenship to receive Medicaid benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that requiring enrollees to document their U.S. citizenship would reduce Medicaid spending by $220 million over five years and by $735 million over ten years.

Deal's action in 2005 has allowed millions of deserving U.S. citizens to keep their Medicaid benefits at a time when states are facing budget shortfalls because states have been given the tools to prevent millions of illegal aliens from using up limited public assistance resources.

"This is an important anti-fraud provision that has effectively and efficiently prevented millions of illegal aliens from fraudulently accessing taxpayer-funded benefits," Deal said

He proposed a verification amendment in the first House health care bill this year and it was voted down on a party line vote. A second attempt was not allowed by House leaders, including liberal Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"If we fail to include verification in the final legislation, we can thank Speaker Pelosi for giving illegal aliens taxpayer-funded health care," Deal said. "This is taking place at a time when Georgia and other states across the nation are forced to make dramatic cuts to their budgets. It is more important than ever to make sure that our limited public assistance dollars are focused exclusively on those who legally qualified to receive them."

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Opinion: No More Tax Benefits for Illegals!‏

Every day, in cities throughout the United States, illegal immigrants take advantage of expensive health care services paid for with taxpayer dollars. What have Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama done to prohibit this massive abuse of our financial resources?

Not a single thing. In fact, Pelosi and Obama are threatening to open up the entire health care system to every Illegal Immigrant.

It's time we fight back and make our voices heard. Nathan Deal has been leading the fight in Congress to stop illegal immigrants from getting taxpayer-funded health care benefits. In fact, he wrote the law requiring every state to verify identity and citizenship prior to enrolling anyone in Medicaid. No one has been more aggressive about ensuring precious health care funds go only to those here legally.

Just last month, Nathan offered an amendment to the Democrat government-run health care scheme that would prevent illegal immigrants from getting taxpayer-funded Medicaid benefits by simply requiring verification that an individual is a U.S. Citizen, or in this country legally. But the Democrats defeated Nathan's amendment on a mostly party-line vote.

It's time to demand citizenship verification for taxpayer-funded services. We can't wait any longer. With your help, and with one, loud voice, we can force Nancy Pelosi and liberal Democrats to close this loophole once and for all.

Deal for Governor

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Putting out the fire of healthcare takeover

As State Insurance and Fire Safety Commissioner, the safety and protection of our
citizens is my job. That is what Georgians elected me to do. That is why I cannot
be silent about the government takeover of healthcare that the U.S. House of Representatives
is proposing this week. If your mental smoke alarm has batteries, it should be going
off now.

First, a government takeover of anything usually results in higher prices and poorer
service. Think about what has happened to our schools with the price-per-pupil continuing
to rise and test scores staying flat or only inching up. The unions, such as the
National Education Association, have resisted educational choice with every fiber
in their being. They have used dues from hard-working Georgia teachers to lobby
against even the most basic educational choice. Obama's so called "public-option"
is nothing more than the first step of government takeover.

The government acquisition of General Motors may save the Camaro and the Corvette,
but may give the new company such an unfair financial advantage that it drives Ford
Motor Company to the brink of bankruptcy. This kind of meddling in the private sector
was certainly not a mandate from any voter back in November. And if the members
of Congress aren't careful, they are going to allow the president to do the same
thing to the healthcare network in America.

Second, destroying the private sector in healthcare would substitute bureaucratic
planning and control for competition and consumer choice. I realize that the word
"destroying" sounds pretty strong. But when you are able to undercut the private
healthcare market, and then add a trillion dollars of new taxes to pay for it, the
result will be companies going out of business. And, all the while, workers likely
will be forced into the government-sponsored plan simply because it is less costly
for employers, even though the care may be inferior. In a word, a monopoly is created.
And when that monopoly can decide whether you live or die, it is too powerful.
How did a country built on the entrepreneurial spirit ever get to a point where
we take glee in seeing the freemarket punished and forced into bankruptcy? This
is not the kind of leadership we need in Washington, Atlanta-or Moscow for that
matter.

Third, as the government-run healthcare plan gobbles up business, there would be
no incentive to improve quality or increase efficiency, but instead we'll see eventual
efforts to control costs by restricting access and choice-such as happens now in
England and Canada. When the good people of Georgia have to wait months or years
for surgery or specialized medical care, we'll know the house is on fire. Access
and Choice will decrease-not increase.

The societal engineers who want to tear down the private sector in health insurance
don't want to be honest about the "uninsured" statistics either. They pad the numbers
with illegal aliens, with young people who choose not to be insured (because they
often think they are invincible), and with people in transition between jobs. So,
before we take such drastic action, let's do more to encourage the non-profit clinics
out there providing a medical home to the uninsured-clinics such as the Good Samaritan
Health Center in Atlanta and the Athens Neighborhood Health Center.

Fourth, have you ever thought that if government can't afford to finance existing
programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, then providing health
care for all our citizens might really be tricky? We must wake up and smell the
smoke before it's too late.

I travel the state frequently and often tout the importance of changing the batteries
in smoke detectors and testing the equipment at least once per year. Fellow citizens,
the detector in all our brains is beeping incessantly trying to warn us of a disaster
that awaits if we allow this takeover. Yet, our smooth talking president and his
big-government allies in the U.S. Congress are telling us it is a false alarm and
urging everyone to return to business as usual. This is a mistake, and as a statewide-elected
official in Georgia, I must urge you to tell your Congressman to vacate this hasty
plan and return to sanity.

Finally, let's think about the future. Do you possibly want to saddle your children,
your nieces and nephews, and even your grandchildren with trillions of future tax
payments when we can't pay the debt we already have?

The house is on fire-but the fire can be put out. Call the White House and the U.S.
House of Representatives today and tell them to back away from this ill-considered
government takeover of healthcare. Urge them to delay this rushed effort to socialize
the best medical system in the world.

By Commissioner John Oxendine

-----
www.Fayette Front Page
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

John McCain's Remarks at Rally in Concord, NC today

It's great to be here in North Carolina. This is a must-win state on November 4th, and early voting is taking place now, so make sure you get out there and make your voice heard. With your help, we're going to win North Carolina, and bring change to Washington, DC.

We had a good debate this week, and I thought I did pretty well, but let's have some straight talk: the real winner this week was Joe the Plumber. Joe won, because he's the only person to get a real answer out of Senator Obama about his plans for our country. Congratulations Joe. That is an impressive achievement.

Now, Joe didn't ask for Senator Obama to come to his house, and he didn't ask to be famous. He certainly didn't ask for the political attacks on him from the Obama campaign. Joe's dream is to own a small business that will create jobs in his community, and the attacks on him are an attack on small businesses all over the country that employ 84% of Americans. We learned more about Senator Obama's plans from Joe's question than we've learned in months of speeches by Senator Obama.

We learned that Senator Obama's economic goal is, as he told Joe, is to quote "spread the wealth around." He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs and opportunities for all Americans. This explains some big problems with my opponent's claim that he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You might ask: How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now? How do you reduce the number zero?

Well, that's the key to Barack Obama's whole plan: Since you can't reduce taxes on those who pay zero, the government will write them all checks called a tax credit. And the Treasury will have to cover those checks by taxing other people, including a lot of folks just like Joe. In other words, Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway.

The Obama tax increase would come at the worst possible time for America, and especially for small businesses like the one Joe dreams of owning. The small businesses Senator Obama would tax provide 16 million jobs in America. And a sudden tax hike will kill some of those jobs at a time when need to be creating more jobs. I'm not going to let that happen.

America has an alternative to the phony tax cut my opponent started talking about only months ago. The McCain-Palin tax cut is the real thing. We're going to double the child deduction for every family. We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America.

As Joe has now reminded us all, America didn't become the greatest nation on earth by giving our money to the government to "spread the wealth around." In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. And that is exactly what I intend to do as President of the United States.

This is the choice that we face. These are hard times. Our economy is in crisis. Americans are fighting in two wars. We face many enemies in this dangerous world, and many challenges here at home.

The next President won't have time to get used to the office. He will have to act immediately. We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: waiting for our luck to change. We have to act immediately. I said it at the last debate: I'm not George Bush; if Senator Obama wants to run against George Bush, he should have run for President 4 years ago. We need a new direction now. We have to fight for it.

I've been fighting for this country since I was seventeen years old, and I have the scars to prove it. If I'm elected President, I will fight to take America in a new direction from my first day in office until my last. I'm not afraid of the fight, I'm ready for it.

I'm not going to spend $700 billion dollars of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess. I'm going to make sure we take care of the people who were devastated by the excesses of Wall Street and Washington. I'm going to spend a lot of that money to bring relief to you, and I'm not going to wait sixty days to start doing it.

I have a plan to protect the value of your home and get it rising again by buying up bad mortgages and refinancing them so if your neighbor defaults he doesn't bring down the value of your house with him.

I have a plan to let retirees and people nearing retirement keep their money in their retirement accounts longer so they can rebuild their savings.

I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home.

Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.

The explosion of government spending over the last eight years has put us deeper in debt to foreign countries that don't have our best interests at heart. It weakened the dollar and made everything you buy more expensive.

If I'm elected President, I won't spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money, on top of the $700 billion we just gave the Treasury Secretary, as Senator Obama proposes. Because he can't do that without raising your taxes or digging us further into debt. I'm going to make government live on a budget just like you do.

I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren't working for the American people. And I will veto every single pork barrel bill Congresses passes.

If I'm elected President, I won't fine small businesses and families with children, as Senator Obama proposes, to force them into a new huge government run health care program, while he keeps the cost of the fine a secret until he hits you with it. I will bring down the skyrocketing cost of health care with competition and choice to lower your premiums, and make it more available to more Americans. I'll make sure you can keep the same health plan if you change jobs or leave a job to stay home.

I will provide every single American family with a $5000 refundable tax credit to help them purchase health care insurance. Workers who already have insurance from their employers will keep it and have more money to cover costs. Workers who don't have health insurance can use it to find policy anywhere in this country to meet their basic needs.

If I'm elected President, I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Senator Obama proposes, and force them to cut jobs. I will keep small business taxes where they are, help them keep their costs low, and let them spend their earnings to create more jobs.

If I'm elected President, I won't make it harder to sell our goods overseas and kill more jobs as Senator Obama proposes. I will open new markets to goods made in America and make sure our trade is free and fair. And I'll make sure we help workers who've lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away.

The last President to raise taxes and restrict trade in a bad economy as Senator Obama proposes was Herbert Hoover. That didn't turn out too well. They say those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Well, my friends, I know my history lessons, and I sure won't make the mistakes Senator Obama will.

If I'm elected President, we're going to stop sending $700 billion to countries that don't like us very much. I won't argue to delay drilling for more oil and gas and building new nuclear power plants in America, as Senator Obama does.

We will start new drilling now. We will invest in all energy alternatives -- nuclear, wind, solar, and tide. We will encourage the manufacture of hybrid, flex fuel and electric automobiles. We will invest in clean coal technology. We will lower the cost of energy within months, and we will create millions of new jobs.

Let me give you the state of the race today. We have 17 days to go. We're 6 points down. The national media has written us off. Senator Obama is measuring the drapes, and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to raise taxes, increase spending, and concede defeat in Iraq. But they forgot to let you decide. My friends, we've got them just where we want them.
What America needs in this hour is a fighter; someone who puts all his cards on the table and trusts the judgment of the American people. I have fought for you most of my life. There are other ways to love this country, but I've never been the kind to do it from the sidelines.

I know you're worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future. Will we continue to lead the world's economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren's future be brighter than ours?
My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.

I know what fear feels like. It's a thief in the night who robs your strength.

I know what hopelessness feels like. It's an enemy who defeats your will.

I felt those things once before. I will never let them in again. I'm an American. And I choose to fight. Don't give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.

Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what's right for America.

Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.

Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here.
We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Now, let's go win this election and get this country moving again.

McCain-Palin Campaign Conference Call On Barack Obama's Health Care Lies

"[W]hat we've seen on the issue of health care reform is the basic Obama strategy, which is attack John McCain and don't answer questions about your own plan, and the result has been the worst and the most sustained distortion of policy in this entire campaign -- a dubious honor that no one will be able to exceed." -- Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008 Senior Policy Adviser

Today, McCain-Palin 2008 held a press conference call with Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008 senior policy adviser, to discuss Barack Obama's health care lies:

Doug Holtz-Eakin: "I'm sorry to have to join you in such terrible circumstances, but what we've seen on the issue of health care reform is the basic Obama strategy, which is attack John McCain and don't answer questions about your own plan, and the result has been the worst and the most sustained distortion of policy in this entire campaign -- a dubious honor that no one will be able to exceed. Let me just go through the attacks we've seen running in a flood of ads nationwide and repeated in Barack Obama's stump speeches.

"Distortion number one: John McCain will tax health care benefits for the first time, having the largest middle-income tax increase in history. Absolutely false. Both before and after John McCain's reform, the tax code will subsidize private health insurance, period. Right now, we have a subsidy for private health insurance that is skewed towards the richest, most affluent Americans who have employer-sponsored insurance. After the reform, that subsidy will be equally distributed across all types of insurance, and the same amount will apply to every individual who gets private health insurance. Why Barack Obama, who preaches fairness at every stop, would oppose this is a mystery to me. Indeed, it's even more mysterious because it's an approach that was supported by his very own top economic adviser, Jason Furman. The Furman Plan which you could call the McCain Plan, would, quote, 'scrap the current deduction altogether and replace it with progressive tax credits, that together with other changes, would ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.' That is, in fact, the John McCain plan. Barack Obama is opposed to that. This is a distortion because it only focuses on one part of the plan, and ignores entirely the tax credit -- $5,000 for families, $2,500 for individuals -- that would go along with the plan.

"The second attack has been that, somehow, it'll be a tax increase. If you happen to have, from your employer, a health insurance policy that has, quote, 'as good as a member of Congress' -- that's the Barack Obama gold-standard for health insurance -- not only will you not only have a tax increase. You will have more tax dollars back for health care than you do right now, a savings ranging from $3,800, a bottom bracket of 10%, to $800 to the top income tax bracket at 35%. It's just a complete distortion to call it a tax increase.

"The second distortion is, John McCain will tax health care benefits for the first time, and send the money straight to the insurance companies. The truth is that this is simply a deceptive attack. American families get to decide exactly where they're going to put their credit dollars. They will pick the health insurance plan of their choice to meet their needs. It will give them the flexibility to tailor their insurance to the point in their life cycle. They can pick a policy that's portable and moves with them from job to job, from job to home. They will not have to change providers if they change jobs. Many people will, for the first time, will be able to say they have a pediatrician because they don't have to change every time they change jobs. Indeed, moving the money directly to the insurance companies simply is an administrative efficiency. And if Barack Obama favors inefficient large government, well then you should look at his plans. It's e specially ironic that he would attack this, with that this is his own policy under his Hope Tax Credit where the money simply goes from the federal government to colleges.

"Distortion number three: Under John McCain's plan, Americans with a pre-existing condition will not find coverage. Absolutely false. John McCain has pledged to the American people a Guaranteed Access Plan in every state that would cover those who are denied coverage because either pre-existing conditions or high cost. The guaranteed access plan would have capped premiums so that it is affordable. It would take advantage of and require the providers to use modern techniques like disease management to reduce the cost of care, and it would impose fines on those companies that denied inappropriately, so it would have a built-in check on the source of the denial.

"Distortion number four: The McCain health care plan will damage employer-provided insurance for millions of Americans. That's not true. In fact, the McCain plan is meant to augment the employer-sponsored insurance, which is the primary source of private insurance in America. Point number one is that, nothing changes with employers under the McCain plan. Employers can deduct right now, the full cost employee compensation, including their health insurance. They will, after the reform, be able to deduct the full cost of all employee compensation. There are incentives to provide insurance, which are to attract high-quality employees of various skills so that you can credit them in the labor market, will be absolutely unchanged. He has asserted that they will be left with older sicker pools because that young people opt out. Why would they do that? Right now, a young person, say a 25-year old, might be getting $4,000 worth of health insurance from their employer. That's not the greatest insurance in the world, but if they opt-out, they'll get $2,500 worth of health insurance, the maximum they can get with that tax credit. Why would they trade $4,000 worth of coverage for $2,500, if the out-of-pocket is no different? So the assertion that somehow this is a plan that is intended to harm employer-sponsored insurance is simply incorrect. It will allow the millions of Americans who are working and uninsured in small businesses across America to have access to insurance for the first time. Access to insurance is the gateway to better care. It's the gateway to treatment of conditions that would later be more expensive if left untreated. It is the most important way to get cost savings for the system as a whole.

"In contrast, Barack Obama's plan has been estimated to drive as many as 15 million individuals out of their employer sponsored coverage. And that's simply because he will impose a play or pay mandate on employers, something I want to come back to later.

"And then finally today, Barack Obama leveled the charge that the McCain plan will reduce Medicare spending by $882 billion. Let's consider the source of this charge. Number one, it's a study by The Center for American Progress, a fully owned subsidiary of the Barack Obama campaign. It is authored by individuals who have donated to Democrats including Barack Obama. It is hardly an independent neutral source. The method of doing this analysis is just dumb. It says that, let's assert that the McCain plan has a $1.2 trillion cost. Something that is false. And then divide that proportionally between Medicare and Medicaid to assert that we'll lose $882 billion in Medicare and the remainder in Medicaid. If you apply the same techniques to Barack Obama's plan, which has been estimated to cost $240 billion a year, over the next 10 years Barack Obama will be promising American seniors $1.6 trillion in cuts to Medicare, and America's poor $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid. The McCain campaign is not running ads and making speeches with those kinds of assertions. It is patently false. We're going to say, Barack Obama's plan costs money because third-party experts have estimated that it costs money.

"Now, the assertion that somehow we are undertaking cuts to Medicare doesn't stand up on analysis either. It is true that as we institute the following reforms promoting a payment reform that moves away from fragmented fee for service, volume based approaches to coordinated care with an emphasis on prevention and wellness. You might be able to actually achieve the same quality outcomes at lower cost. We do want to eliminate Medicare fraud and abuse, estimated to be $60 billion a year by the Inspector General and CMS. We would like to see that drug premiums are not subsidized for America's wealthiest participants in the Part B plan. We don't see why Warren Buffett should get a 75 cents on the dollar subsidy to his prescription drugs. We are in favor of a new generation of treatment models that will better manage the chronic diseases that are 70% of the bill in America's health care. Greater use of health information technologies. A business model to promote their spread, and an identification and implementation of a medical home model. We'll promote coordination and care and reduced costs. John McCain has long been a supporter of faster entry by generic drugs and favors a pathway to bio-generics. Greater use of generics and bio-generics will in fact lower the cost of pharmaceuticals in the Medicare system. In the context of a comprehensive reform of this type, where insurance is reformed, the subsidy to private insurance is reformed, Medicare payment and policies are reformed. We see no reason why the Medicare advantage plans should continue to get a $15 billion a year subsidy. We'll put them on a level playing field and save some money there.

"It's an interesting spin that the Obama campaign has chosen because some of the things that I just talked about -- managing chronic diseases, greater use of health IT, promoting prevention, greater use of generic drugs -- might sound familiar. It's because they are in Senator Obama's plan. He doesn't describe them as cuts. He calls them things that would strengthen the system and savings. So the spin is inappropriate. The distortion is outrageous. It's an attempt to simply scare America's seniors. And that's a way of simply answering questions about his own plan. What did we see in the debate this week? We saw John McCain ask Barack Obama, 'How will you implement your play or pay system?' Very simple. That's what's he's always said he has.

You either provide coverage according to the standards that Barack Obama will dictate to American business, or you will pay a fine. He refuses to say what that fine will be. Instead his answer was, well if you're a small business you're exempt. But he refuses to tell us what a small business is. So we've got a policy which he claims with a straight face to the American people to say I just explained my policy which neither defines who pays the fine, or what the fine is. He owes the American people a better answer. But his campaign went on record yesterday in The Wall Street Journal as saying that they have no intention to answer that question before November 4th. That's not exactly full disclosure of your plans to the American people, and in the face of the kinds of distortions he's putting on John McCain, it's even less impressive.

"He also has the comparable child mandate. He hasn't explained that. So in closing, I'm sorry for going so long. I've watched these ads. I've listened to these speeches. I have been appalled at the conduct of the Obama campaign. This is one of the most pressing domestic issues. It deserves a debate in this campaign that is comparable to its importance to the American people. And it's not getting that from Barack Obama. We have got a choice between John McCain's approach, which attempts to control the cost of health care. Making insurance more affordable. Revolutionize the treatment of disease in America to lower its cost. Achieve higher quality outcomes. Spread insurance to greater choice, giving individuals control over their futures. Versus Barack Obama, who has in fact said that he favors a single payer system. Something he denied to the American public in that debate. He has a system of mandates on employers, mandates on families. A big new gove rnment insurance program. A health bureaucracy. If you can't meet the mandates, you'll end up in the new plan run by the health bureaucracy. It is an expansion of big government. It is toward an ideal that he has said he likes; a single payer system. It is reminiscent of the democrats approach in pushing another important American ideal, housing for Americans through a big government Fannie/Freddie approach. Barack Obama's on the path to risky sub-prime health care. He needs to put that straight to the American people and stop lying about John McCain's plan."

Listen To The Conference Call

McCain-Palin Campaign Conference Call On Barack Obama's Health Care Lies

Barack Obama says that Washington is broken, but he's running his health care system through it. It doesn't make sense." -- Doug Holtz-Eakin, Senior Policy Adviser

Today (10/4/08), the McCain-Palin campaign held a press conference call with Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin senior policy adviser, to discuss Barack Obama's lies concerning John McCain's proposed health care reforms:

Doug Holtz-Eakin: "At the moment, the Obama campaign has several ads up on radio and television attacking the McCain health plan and quite frankly these ads can only be described as cynical and deceitful. Despite the fact that Barack Obama has not shown the judgment to choose well in other policy areas, on this one it cannot possibly be a lack of knowledge or judgment. His adviser, Jason Furman, advocated for what is essentially the McCain health tax reform in the journal Democracy, in the summer of 2006, and so he could easily be informed as to how wrong these ads are. So it cannot be a lack of knowledge. It has to be a lack of honor.

"They are saying several things about the McCain tax plan that are just flat out wrong. The first thing was Senator Obama himself, in the first debate, said that John McCain would tax employers on the insurance they provide their employees, that is false. Nothing changes for the employer under the McCain healthcare reform. Nothing. They have the same incentives to provide health care insurance. They can still deduct all compensation cost, health insurance, wages, and others. They still want to attract high quality employees and providing a rich benefits package, pensions, health insurance, is a way to do that. Their incentives will be unchanged.

"They are saying that it is a big tax increase, and that, my friends, is also false. This is a plan where if you are receiving from your employer the health insurance that Barack Obama has decided that every American should have, whether they decide that or not, Barack Obama has decided everybody should have health insurance like a Congressman. That would be a $12,000 family plan. If you are receiving that from your employer you will have more money for healthcare left over after this tax reform than you do right now. If you are in the very bottom tax bracket, the 10% bracket, a $12,000 health insurance plan would yield a tax liability of $1,200. A $5,000 family refundable credit would more than offset that tax liability, leaving you with $3,800 to put in a HSA. If you are fortunate enough to be in that top bracket, the liability would be $4,200, more than offset by the $5,000 credit, $800 in your HSA. Now, it is the case that there may be some people at the very top who have a liability greater than their health tax credit. Now, under the current system as a result, the one that Barack Obama wants to defend which is attacking John McCain's system, we are having the middle class pay taxes and subsidize the gold plated coverage of the most affluent in America. And it perplexes me, even given his flexible policy principles, how he could walk around saying the things he says about the middle class and defend the status quo which rewards to greatest subsidy to the most affluent of Americans.

"He's called this a middle class tax increase. As I've pointed out, you've had to be getting an enormous amount of health insurance, one the middle class can only dream of, in order to have a net tax liability. For some Americans, they are actually paying out-of-pocket and getting no help whatsoever. This would give them the same help, $2,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a family, that those receiving from an employer get. Simple matter of fairness. And, there are many Americans who are uninsured, 47 million, roughly. This would give them money toward a health insurance policy, and it basically is nearly the cost, in the individual market, for a family policy of an individual policy, nationwide.

"Now, they're also saying that John McCain's health care plan would mean they never saw the money -- it would go straight to insurance companies. Well, that's just a ridiculous charge. Individuals control the insurance they choose under the John McCain plan. They decide the insurance company. It's essentially the same, I think, as the Associated Press pointed out, it's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer. This is money in control of the individuals -- in control of families. John McCain trusts the judgment of the American people. He's willing to put the money in their hands because they know what's best. They can then shop, across state lines as the Senator has pointed out, to find a policy that fits their family's needs and, by producing greater competition among the 12,000-odd insurers, nationwide, generates some genuine policies at a reasonable cost, and a high quality of service, holding some insurance company's feet to the fire -- have them work for the American people, not the other way around.

"Senator Obama has leveled two charges on that particular approach: Number one, that that the most vulnerable -- those with previous conditions or high costs will be left exposed. He knows that's false. John McCain has proposed a Guaranteed Access Plan at every state in this country. It would provide federal and state assistance to make sure that individuals could buy a policy, at no more than 150% of the comparable policy in that state. Any denial would be immediately referred to a board which would adjudicate whether it was acceptable or not, and if it was not, that company, that had denied the claim, would be fined. He's going to take care of the most vulnerable population.

"He's also made the assertion that John McCain wants to deregulate health care like you would want to deregulate banking. This is the situation where it's the equivalent of having a consumer deregulation of banking to allow you to get off a plane and get money out of the ATM, in any state in the country. That's the kind of deregulation that allowed Americans to travel and not have to open a bank account in every state. They should equally be able to get a financial service for their health insurance across state lines.

"They also suggest that, somehow, that there will be no consumer protections. That's an insult to the 50 state insurance commissioners that are working very hard to ensure that in those states, insurance policies are well documented, that there is suitable coverage, there is safety and soundness regulations for every company that's headquartered in the state. None of that goes away under the John McCain plan. There's also the assertion that somehow the John McCain plan is going to shred employer coverage. The McCain plan is meant to build on the foundation of employer coverage which is the largest source of health insurance in the United States. There is no incentive for a young, healthy worker to walk out of an employer plan as the assertion goes. Suppose you're a 25-year old who has got about $5,000 in health insurance from your company. Under the McCain plan you're in the bottom bracket, you'll have a $500 tax liability, a $2500 c redit, a $2000 net addition to your HSA. Why would you trade that $5,000 policy with nothing out of your pocket for an inferior $2,500 policy bought in the individual market? No individual is going to walk out. Even someone in the 25% bracket comes out $1250 ahead. The assertions don't match the numbers in the McCain plan. It's simply an attempt to scare individuals.

"The McCain plan does stand in stark contrast to Barack Obama's plan. Obama has said that he would prefer to have a single payer system if that's where the United States had started and he is certainly making a strong push for much more centralized, government run health insurance. He has a mandate that parents must cover their children. Parents want to cover their children but they can't afford to. He will have to enforce this mandate somehow -- presumably with a fine -- for a mandate on parents who are unable to cover their children. It's a play-or-pay mandate on employers. Employers are going to take one look at that mandate, cover the $12,000 for workers or pay a fine, and they'll pay a fine. Where will those individuals end up? Well, either uninsured or in the new government-run insurance plan that Barack Obama is proposing. At a time when Medicare is already broken, he is going to have a new government insurance progr am for Americans, and it'll be run through a large new health bureaucracy, the Health Exchange, which all leads you to have mandates on employers, mandates on kids, a big push for new bureaucracies and new government programs. It's been estimated that his program will cost $240 billion a year. Now, that's not a way to improve prior coverage. That's not a way to improve the functioning of health insurance markets. That's enlarging government bureaucracies. That's like having your health insurance run by the DMV. Barack Obama says that Washington is broken, but he's running his health care system through it. It doesn't make sense. So it's time to set the record straight. John McCain's health care plan should be presented to the American people. They should compare it to Barack Obama's plan and make their choice. We trust the people that if they're given the fair information they'll make the right choice."

Listen To The Conference Call
---
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
---

Barack obama's Health Care Record

With Barack Obama lying about John McCain's health care plan today, please find below the facts about Barack Obama's health care record:

BARACK OBAMA RECENTLY ACKNOWLEDGED HIS PLAN WILL COST AT LEAST $150 BILLION A YEAR

Despite What He Claimed Today, Barack Obama Recently Said His Plan Will Cost At Least $150 Billion, Despite Earlier Claims That It Will Cost Much Less:

Barack Obama Said On "60 Minutes" That His Plan Would Cost At Least $150 Billion. CBS' Steve Kroft: "How much is it going to cost? $150 billion it's going to cost, right?" Obama: "It is. It is. But we pay for every dime that we propose to spend. I believe in pay as you go. That if you want to propose a new program, you better cut some old ones. If you want to expand a program, then you better figure out where the money's coming from." (CBS' "60 Minutes," 9/21/08)

Previously, Barack Obama Said His Plan Will Save The Average Person $2,500 Per Year And Will Cost Taxpayers Between $50-$65 Billion Per Year. "Obama said his plan could save the average consumer $2,500 a year and bring health care to all. Campaign aides estimated the cost of the program at $50 billion to $65 billion a year, financed largely by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy that are scheduled to expire." (Mike Glover, "The Time Has Come For Universal, Affordable Health Care, Obama Says," The Associated Press, 5/29/07)

BARACK OBAMA'S CLAIM THAT HIS PLAN SAVES FAMILIES $2,500 IS BASED ON "MISLEADING MATH"

There Is "Zero Credible Evidence" That The Obama Plan Will Lower The Costs Insurance Premiums By $2,500, Which Is Based Off Of "Misleading Math":

Obama's Pledge To Lower Health Care Premiums By $2,500 In His First Term "Is A Matter Of Considerable Dispute" Among Experts. "In speech after speech, Senator Barack Obama has pledged that he will lower the country's health care costs enough to 'bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.' Moreover, Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has promised that his health plan will be in place 'by the end of my first term as president of the United States.' Whether Mr. Obama can deliver is a matter of considerable dispute among health analysts and economists." (Kevin Sack, "Obstacles For Obama In Meeting Health Care Goal," The New York Times, 7/23/08)

A Health Policy Professor At The University Of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Said The Savings In The Obama Plan Are "Wishful Thinking." "Jonathan B. Oberlander, who teaches health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, called it wishful thinking. 'Do they have the potential to generate significant savings in the long run?' Dr. Oberlander asked. 'Yes. Do I believe they will produce substantial savings in the short run that can be used to finance Obama's plan? No.'" (Kevin Sack, "Obstacles For Obama In Meeting Health Care Goal," The New York Times, 7/23/08)

M.I.T.'s Jonathan Gruber Said That There Is "Zero Credible Evidence" That The Obama Plan Will Save The Average Family On The Costs Of Insurance Premiums. "Experts also are skeptical of both [Obama and Clinton's] claims that their plans will reduce the cost of insurance for the typical family by $2,000 or more. 'I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion,' says M.I.T's Jonathan Gruber." (Factcheck.org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 6/9/08)

Factcheck.Org Said Obama's Claim That His Plan Will Cut Insurance Premium Costs By $2,500 Is "A Bit Of Misleading Math." "That's a bit of misleading math. It assumes individual Americans will share in all of the savings for the health care system, which includes insurance companies, the government and health care providers. Obama claims families will save $2,500 under his plan, but they won't see at least some of those savings directly in the form of lower premiums. And they may not see them indirectly either." (Factcheck.Org, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 6/16/08)

BARACK OBAMA'S PLAN WILL BURDEN BUSINESSES WITH A MANDATE AND IS VAGUE ABOUT WHICH ONES ARE EXEMPT

Barack Obama's Health Care Plan Requires Employers To Provide Insurance Or Contribute A Percentage Of Their Payroll To The Public Plan:

Barack Obama's Plan Includes Required Employer Coverage Similar To The Failed Clinton Mandate Of 1993. "Obama would require almost all employers to offer insurance to workers or face a tax penalty, an idea that many businesses abhor and that is also in Edwards's proposal. This employer mandate drove much of the opposition to the Clinton plan in 1994." (Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr., "Obama Says Washington Is Ready For Health Plan," The Washington Post, 5/30/07)

· "In Addition, Mandated Employer Coverage Has Faced Fierce Opposition In The Past And Likely Will Again, [New America Foundation Len] Nichols Said." (JoNel Aleccia, "Overhauling Health Care: Two Divergent Visions," MSNBC News, www.msnbc.msn.com, 9/22/08)

Barack Obama Is Vague On The Specifics Small Businesses Have To Meet In Order To Be Exempt From His Employer Mandate:

Obama's Campaign Has Not "Put Out A Specific Number" When Asked To Identify Which Small Businesses Would Qualify For The Small Business Exemption And Tax Credit. "Under Obama's health plan, businesses over an unspecified size would have to either make a 'meaningful contribution' to their employees' health coverage or else pay an undefined percentage of payroll towards the costs of the national plan. Obama has also promised 'small businesses' that he would provide them with a refundable tax credit worth up to 50 percent of what they contribute towards their employees' health premiums. 'We haven't put out a specific number,' said Jason Furman, Obama's director of economic policy, when asked by ABC News to identify who would be covered by Obama's small business exemption and health-care tax credit." (Gregory Wallace and Teddy Davis, "Obama Fuzzy On 'Small Business' Exemption," ABC's "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 8/5/08)

Obama's Campaign Has Not Laid Out Details About How Much The Play Or Pay Or Tax Would Be For Those Who Don't Offer Health Insurance Or Which Small Businesses Are Exempt. "The campaign has not said how large the tax would be for businesses that opt not to offer insurance, or how small a business would have to be to be excluded from the requirement. If the payroll tax is too low, say 6 percent, many businesses will opt to pay it instead of offering insurance, sending their employees into the public program and boosting federal costs, he noted." (JoNel Aleccia, "Overhauling Health Care: Two Divergent Visions," MSNBC News, www.msnbc.msn.com, 9/22/08)

Obama's Staff "Declined To Be More Specific" For The Philadelphia Inquirer About His Employer Mandate. "Under [Obama's] plan, employers either would give employees 'meaningful' insurance coverage or pay a percentage of payroll to provide coverage for the uninsured. His staff declined to be more specific." (Stacey Burling, "Clinton, Obama Differ Slightly On Health Plans," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/15/08)

BARACK OBAMA SAID HIS PLAN MAY LEAD TO A SINGLE-PAYER PLAN "OVER TIME"

Barack Obama Suggested His Health Care Plan Could Lead To A Single-Payer System "Over Time":

Barack Obama Says His Health Care Plan Could Lead To Single-Payer System "Over Time." Obama: "If I were designing a system from scratch, then I'd probably set up a single-payer system. ... But the problem is we're not starting from scratch. ... Making that transition in a rapid way I think would be very difficult. ... So my attitude is let's build up the system we got, let's make it more efficient, we may be over time -- as we make the system more efficient and everybody's cover -- decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively." (Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Albuquerque, NM, 8/18/08)

Barack Obama Was A Self-Described "Proponent" Of Single-Payer Health Care, But Later Backtracked:

Barack Obama Was A "Proponent Of A Single-Payer Health Care Program" And Said It Could Happen If Democrats Occupied The White House And A Majority In Congress. Obama: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House." (Barack Obama, Remarks At AFL-CIO Forum, Chicago, IL, 6/30/03)

In 2008, Barack Obama Said He Would Only Support A Single-Payer System If "Starting From Scratch." Obama: "[I] never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn't have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system." (Barack Obama, CNN/Congressional Black Caucus Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Myrtle Beach, SC, 1/21/08)

KEY DEMOCRATS DOUBT THAT BARACK OBAMA'S PLAN WILL PASS

Senate Democrats Are Already Raising Doubts About The Likelihood That The Obama Plan Will Pass:

Senior Congressional Democrats Are "Maneuvering To Lower Public Expectations" Of Barack Obama's Health Care Promises. "Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult. It is still seven months before Election Day, but already senior Democrats are maneuvering to lower public expectations on the key policy issue." (Manu Raju, "Dems Hedge On Healthcare," The Hill, 4/23/08)

Barack Obama's Promises To Deliver Universal Care On The Campaign Trail "May Not Match The Political Reality On Capitol Hill." "For some senators, the promises made by Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) outside of Washington may not match the political reality on Capitol Hill." (Manu Raju, "Dems Hedge On Healthcare," The Hill, 4/23/08)

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) On The Obama Health Care Plan: "We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff. . What they are doing is...laying out their ambitions." (Manu Raju, "Dems Hedge On Healthcare," The Hill, 4/23/08)

Sen. Chuck Schumer Questions If The U.S. Is "Ready For A Major National Heath Care Plan." "Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is 'not sure we have the big plan on healthcare. ... Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan,' Schumer said." (Manu Raju, "Dems Hedge On Healthcare," The Hill, 4/23/08)

IN ILLINOIS, OBAMA HAD A "PERFECT VOTING RECORD" IN FAVOR OF STATE MANDATES

In Illinois, Barack Obama Had A "Perfect Voting Record" On Insurance Mandates That Are Now In Place In Illinois And Have Increased The Cost Of Health Care In Illinois:
"Obama Voted For All" Of The 18 Insurance Mandates That Passed During His Time As A State Senator. "Today, the requirement is one of 43 mandates imposed by Illinois on health insurance, according to the Illinois Division of Insurance. ... By my count, during Mr. Obama's tenure in the state Senate, 18 different laws came up for a vote and passed that imposed new mandates on private health insurance. Mr. Obama voted for all of them." (Scott Gottlieb, Op-Ed, "Obama's Health Care Record," The Wall Street Journal, 5/5/08)

According To American Enterprise Institute's Scott Gottlieb, Barack Obama Had A "Perfect Voting Record" On Enacting State Mandates That Have Increased Insurance Costs. Gottlieb: "The fact is that about 18 in all, bills came up - public acts came up that would impose new mandates on private insurance plans about things they had to cover and [Obama] voted for all of them. He had a perfect voting record. We know as a matter of policy, these state mandates end up increasing cost. Many of them are pushed by special minutes the states. In the case of dental anesthesia, pushed by the dentists, this is far more complicated dental procedures. Nonetheless, these are things that people may be willing to fund out of pocket or partially pay for. By mandating them, insurance companies need to cover the cost, it ends up increasing the cost of health insurance and cost of basic policies which in many cases is all people can afford." (CNBC's "Squawk Box," 5/6/08)

· Barack Obama "Clearly" Did Not Stand Up To Special Interest In Illinois By Consistently Voting In Favor Of Insurance Mandates. Gottlieb: "[B]arack Obama was hardly alone for voting for state mandates. In fairness, they have become less popular because a lot of states are realizing they do increase the cost of health insurance. But he's out on the campaign trail talking about his willingness to stand up to special interests in order to control costs. In the state of Illinois, he clearly didn't do that. He voted for all of these state mandates. In fact, he voted for a lot of additional insurance regulation, some of which we didn't count because we didn't feel it fit the mold of what you call a mandate. If you include the insurance regulation he voted for, voting record was 21 out of 21 public acts that came up." (CNBC's "Squawk Box," 5/6/08)

Remarks by John McCain at the NFIB & Ebay 2008 National Small Business Summit

U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks at the NFIB & eBay 2008 National Small Business Summit in Washington, D.C., today:

Thank you very much. I appreciate the hospitality of the National Federation of Independent Business. And I am honored to be in the company of so many men and women who represent the best of American enterprise.

I have never run a small, struggling enterprise -- unless you count my presidential campaign last year. But I do know that more than anything else, small businesses are what make the American economy run. You're the ones who take the risks, often with little start-up money and nothing to fall back on. You are the ones who do most of the innovating in this country, and most of the hiring, too. For women, for immigrants and for people of every background, small businesses are the path to success and to the American dream.

In this very tough time for our economy and for workers and families across our country, job creation among small businesses is crucial. The African-American and the Hispanic-American small business communities are one of the fastest growing segments of our economy. That is a credit to the entrepreneurs of America, and America's prosperity depends on your success.

Job creation is just one reason why the government should never take the hard work, sacrifices, and earnings of small businesses for granted. As president, my goal will to get our economy running at full strength again. And that starts by supporting small businesses across America.

Now that we know who I will be facing in the general election, the real debate over economic policy can begin. And as you may have heard, Senator Obama and I might well be meeting soon in a series of town hall discussions. Just the two of us, in direct conversation with voters. No need to turn it into a big media-run production with process questions from reporters, a spin room, and all the rest of it. To keep things friendly, I also suggested that my opponent and I travel to these town hall meetings together in the same plane.

Our disagreements in these town hall meetings will be civil and friendly, but they will also be clear for all to see. On tax policy, health-care reform, trade, government spending, and a long list of other issues, we offer very different choices to the American people. And those choices will have very different consequences for American workers and small business owners.

No matter which of us wins in November, there will be change in Washington. The question is what kind of change? Will we enact the single largest tax increase since the Second World War as my opponent proposes, or will we keep taxes low for families and employers? This election offers Americans a very distinct choice about what kind of change we will have. This is especially true for the small business community.

Let me speak to you about the change I will seek.

As president, I intend to act quickly and decisively to promote growth and opportunity. I intend to keep the current low income and investment tax rates. And I will pursue tax reform that supports the wage-earners and job creators who make this economy run, and help them to succeed in a global economy. Serious reform is needed to help American companies compete in international markets. I have proposed a reduction in the corporate tax rate from the second highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners; to keep businesses and jobs in this country.

One of the most crucial economic issues in this campaign is the ability of American workers to benefit from exports to other nations, and how government policy can help them to do so. And here, too, I welcome the debate with the Democratic nominee.

I want to break down foreign trade barriers, so that America's small businesses can compete abroad. When new trading partners can sell in our market, and American companies can sell in theirs, the gains are great and lasting. The strength of the American economy offers a better life to every society we trade with, and the good comes back to us in many ways -- in better jobs, higher wages, and lower prices. Free trade can also give once troubled and impoverished nations a stake in the world economy, and in their relations with America.

At the same time, we have to help displaced workers at every turn on a tough road, so that they are not just spectators on the opportunities of others. And I have made that commitment with reforms to expand and improve federal aid to American workers in need. We need to help millions of workers who have lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away.

Unfortunately, Senator Obama has a habit of talking down the value of our exports and trade agreements. He even proposed a unilateral re-negotiation of NAFTA -- our agreement with Canada and Mexico that accounts for 33 percent of American exports. But we have a sharp disagreement here that I look forward to debating. If I am elected president, this country will honor its international agreements, including NAFTA, and we will expect the same of others. And in a time of uncertainty for American workers, we will not undo the gains of years in trade agreements now awaiting final approval.

And as we expand markets for Americans products, we must do more tax reform here at home. I will propose and sign into law a reform to permit the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology. We're also going to keep the low rate on capital gains, so that businesses like yours can expand and create jobs instead of just sending more of your earnings to the government. And so parents can spend and save more for their own children, I will propose to double the size of the child tax exemption. I will also propose as well a middle-class tax cut -- a phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax to save more than 25 million middle-class families as much as 2,000 dollars in a single year.

Another of my disagreements with Senator Obama concerns the estate tax, which he proposes to increase to a top rate of 55 percent. The estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books, and the first step to reform is to keep it predictable and keep it low. After a lifetime building up a business, and paying taxes on every dollar that business earns, that asset should not be subjected to a confiscatory tax.

It is not enough, however, to make little fixes here and there in the tax code -- especially if you're a small business owner filing under the individual tax. What we need is a simpler, a flatter, and a fair tax code. As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so. And everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction.

Americans do not resent paying their fair share of taxes. What they do resent, and especially if they're trying to run a business, is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands from the IRS. We know from experience that no serious reform of the current tax code will come out of Congress, so now it is time to turn the decision over to the people. We are going to create a new and simpler tax system -- and give the American people a choice.

Senator Obama's plans would add to the difficulties of small business in other ways, too. Currently, there are the 21.6 million sole proprietorships filing under the individual income tax. When Senator Obama talks about raising income tax rates on those making over 250,000 dollars -- that includes these businesses as well. He also proposes increases in dividend and capital gains taxes. Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise -- seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market. He proposes to eliminate the Social Security earnings cap, and thereby to increase the tax on employers. He proposes to eliminate the secret ballot for union votes, and to raise the minimum wage and then index it, which is a sure way to add to your costs and to slow the creation of new jobs. You work hard in small businesses to grow and to create new jobs and opportunities for others -- and the federal government shouldn't make your work any harder.

As for health care policy, I believe that the best way to help small businesses and employers afford health care is not to increase government control of health care but to bring the rising cost of care under control and give people the option of having personal, portable health insurance.

As it is, the traditional tax-subsidy that supports private insurance is concentrated on a subset of American workers and a portion of our businesses. My health care reform will end that unfair bias in the law, while helping to make health insurance more affordable for every American. We're going to offer every individual and family in America a large tax credit to buy their health care, so that their health insurance is theirs to keep even when they move or change jobs. My plan would allow those who want to stick with employer provided health insurance to do so. But I want to give individuals greater choice, rather than give small business no choice at all.

For too long, government has been the voice of big business, not small business. And to make matters worse, even when very large businesses violate their trust, they seem to be held to a different standard -- getting away with conduct that would leave any small business owner broke. We need rules that assure fairness and punish wrongdoing in the market, and hold every business person in America to the same fair standards.

In times of hardship and distress, we should be more vigilant than ever in holding corporate abuses to account, as in the case of the housing market. Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEO's -- in some cases, the very same CEO's who helped to bring on these market troubles -- bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders. Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while the offenders themselves are packed off with another forty - or fifty million for the road.

If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders.

In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties. And for Republicans, it starts with reclaiming our good name as the party of spending restraint. Somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose. The only power of government that could stop them was the power of veto, and it was rarely used. If that authority is entrusted to me, I will use the veto as needed. I will veto every bill with earmarks. I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end pork-barrel spending once and for all. And I will lead broad reforms that remove the many corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair to smaller business competitors, and inconsistent with a free-market economy.

The recent 300 billion-dollar farm bill was a case in point. Family farmers are America's original small business owners, and many are struggling to survive. But nowadays, small farmers have been forgotten, and instead the Congress sends a steady supply of subsidies to agribusiness. It would be hard to find any single bill that better sums up why so many Americans in both parties are so disappointed in the conduct of their government, and at times so disgusted by it. Even as American families struggle to buy food, because of rising prices, Congress refuses to place real limits on farm subsidies or end tariffs on imports that drive grocery bills higher.

When both parties carry on like this, there is only one proper response -- a presidential veto. That is exactly what I will do as president, with any bill that serves only special interests and corporate welfare. On my watch there will be no more subsidies for special pleaders, no more corporate welfare, no more throwing around billions of dollars of the people's money on pet projects, while the people themselves are struggling to afford their homes, groceries, and gas. We are going to get our priorities straight in Washington -- a clean break from years of squandered wealth and wasted chances.

To control spending, I will also order a thorough review of the budgets of every federal program, department, and agency, and I will post the results of these reviews on the Internet for every American to see. While that review is underway, we will institute a one-year pause in discretionary spending increases with the necessary exemption of military spending and veterans benefits. "Discretionary spending" is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised. Instead, every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever. My administration will change that way of thinking. We will ensure that federal spending serves the common interests, that failed programs are not rewarded but reinvented or ended, and that discretionary spending is going where it belongs -- to essential priorities like job training, the security of o ur citizens, and the care of our veterans.

These are among the many serious issues at stake in this election. All of these challenges, and more, will face the next president, and I will not leave them for some unluckier generation of leaders to deal with. For too long government has been more interested in protecting its budget and its interests rather than the interests of small businesses and the family budgets that depend on your growth. And partisanship in Washington is less focused on your future than it is on the next election.

My goal, however, is not to denigrate government but to make it better, not to deride it but to restore its good name. Government should be on your side, not in your way. It will be hard work, but it is a cause worthy of our best efforts. And if we do it well, in the right spirit, it will be because we have again put our country's interests before the interests of parties, bureaucracies and self-interest. And then we will finally reclaim the confidence of the people we serve. Thank you.