health care

In my last installment of “No Risk, No Reward,” I suggested 5 risky policy changes for the GOP. Remember, you’re not selling plausibility of passage in Congress. You’re selling bold ideas and, by contrast, setting up the party-in-power as sclerotic, bloated, elitist and bureaucratic (all of which is true). Perhaps one of these reforms, like entitlement reform in the 1990s, will even take. Here are 5 more, as promised.

6. Healthcare “1,2,3”

1-Medical savings accounts for every American –  Give every American the option to divert part or all of their Medicare portion of payroll taxes to a medical savings account (aka HSA). These interest-gaining accounts can be used for out-of-pocket medical care and high deductibles. Mitigates the expense account effect running up the costs of healthcare and pulls us back from the cliff (See Singapore).

2-Refundable Tax Credits for the poor (straight into your MSA). Perhaps we can “afford” to help the poor, but not the way we’re doing it. Means-test people and give poor folks refundable tax credits on a sliding scale. They put these resources into their HSAs and choose where their healthcare dollars go.

3-Kill State Monopolies - Let people buy less expensive insurance across state lines. If I can cut my insurance premium in half by buying in Idaho, I should be able to. The only thing that prevents me from doing so is government. Let’s end that bullshit.

7. Dollar-for-Dollar Schools – Create the conditions for the emergence of creative new private, non-profit schools by allowing people to deduct a portion of the tuition to place their kids in these innovative schools. (Then, perhaps this will happen.)  If you’re taking a full pupil out of the DMV-style school but leaving a large portion of the tax money for said pupil, no one can credibly argue that it “takes resources from the public schools.”  Add refundable tax credits for the very poor and you’ve got a viable alternative to the mediocre-at-best public schools system. Universal primary school is maintained. Competition and iterative innovation radically improves our kids’ education. Everybody’s happy (except the teachers’ cartel, uh, union).

8. Congressional Crowdsourcing - Public solutions for public problems means big-dollar contests and public suggestion-box-type efforts can get the best ideas out of the American people. Bureaucrats have terrible incentives. And seriously, there are no Steve Jobs(s) in Congress. Congresspeople and their staffers should find ways to let the "wisdom of crowds" – even ideas futures markets - solve genuine public problems. Who ever heard of an innovative populist meritocracy? Well, now you have.

9. 1% Rule – For every dollar a federal department saves taxpayers relative to a reasonable budget baseline, those employees get 1 percent of that savings directly in their paychecks (according to pay grade). This would encourage bottom-up departmental efforts to tighten up. To prevent artificially bloating budgets the following years in order falsely to reward these functionaries, you’d have to set up the baseline to avoid political gaming of the system. Such may only be possible with a TABOR-like provision. I agree that the devil would be in the details. Just tossin' it out there.

10. Toleration – I have written elsewhere that the GOP should replace the social conservative policy leg of their tripod with a leg of toleration. Toleration is the cultural institution that means conservatives have their own private social conservatism and let others have their own lifestyles, religious beliefs, or whatever as they see fit. The kids today are much more tolerant and you won’t get anywhere with them unless you let go of all the stuff that smacks of theocracy or social engineering a la Falwell. Persuasion and privacy on social issues is preferable to power.(Here are 1-5)

(Note re: this post by Yglesias. Technology contests for CO2 sequestration would cost Americans this much-$. Carbon taxes would cost this much--$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Yes, subsidizing carbon sequestration technologies requires tax money. But there are differences of degree and differences of kind. I’m afraid Yglesias's criticism conflates the two. Spending this much ($) versus orders of magnitude more means throwing alarmists a bone, while not continuing to bankrupt the country. Clearly, the case of anthropogenic climate change is losing ground rapidly. But even if it weren't, not one person yet has made the case that these taxes, subsidies and green boondoggles would have any appreciable effect on emissions (or mitigation). Though they are clearly corporate welfare opportunities, which the Obama Administration looooooves.)

As both Democrats and Republicans sharpen their swords and gear up for the battle over health care reform, Republicans have been searching for an argument that will sway the American people to their side on this issue. President Obama and his allies will, presumably, reference the fact that 45 million Americans are currently uninsured and suggest that opponents of his plan are keeping those Americans from being covered. That will be difficult to counter - who wants to be seen as keeping 45 million Americans from being able to see their doctors or get the treatments they need when they fall ill? If Obama can successfully tar Republicans with that brush, the bill will pass, and we'll be paying the political price in 2010 and 2012. We need effective counter-arguments, and we need them now.

It's been suggested here and elsewhere in the right-wing blogosphere and media that portraying whatever the President's final proposal is as "health-care rationing" is a good counter-arguement to this plan. The government is going to seize all the healthcare and determine how much and what kinds you get, instead of allowing you and your doctors to make the final decision. This plays into the American mistrust of socialism and love of individual freedom, and on the face of it isn't such a bad argument. But there's a hole in it you can drive a bus through.

In the end, *everything* is rationed, simply because there isn't an infinite supply of anything. It's rationing by price, done through the market, and it's taken for granted - it's just a restatement of the law of supply and demand. If "the government is rationing healthcare" is the best argument we can muster, we're hosed. All it would take is for President Obama to give a speech, and other Democrats to go around on the media circuit, pointing out that healthcare is already rationed by price, and questioning the effectiveness of the market's rationing when millions of Americans can't get affordable healthcare. The "rationing" argument will end up with a bigger hole in it than the Titanic - and the Republicans championing it will look like a pack of dogmatic obstructionists.

There are two much better counterarguments Republicans can offer:

1) Finances. We're already in debt, to the tune of $14 trillion. Just keep asking the President and Congress "How do you plan on paying for this?"

2) Fairness. Universal healthcare would be exactly that. If Republicans point out that any universal healthcare scheme would include heroin addicts, meth heads and others who brought their health problems on themselves through poor individual decisions, independents and moderates would reconsider supporting Obama's plan. Who likes the idea of their tax dollars being spent on the health of junkies?

Based on the Mortgage Cramdown vote, these Democrats are our best hope for beating ObamaCare.

1) Max Baucus (MT) - (406) 761-1574 - Senate Finance Committee Chair

2) Michael Bennet (CO) - (719) 328-1100

3) Robert Byrd (W. Va) - (304) 264-4626

4) Thomas Carper (DE) - (302) 856-7690

5) Byron Dorgan (ND) - (701) 852-0703

6) Tim Johnson (SD) - (605) 332-8896

7) Mary Landrieu (LA) - (337) 436-6650

8) Blanche Lincoln (AR) - (870)382-1023

9) Ben Nelson (NE) - (308) 631-7614

10) Mark Pryor (AR) - (501) 324-6336

11) Arlen Specter (PA) - 570-346-2006 - I Know; just think about how much fun it'll be when he stabs the Dems in the Back!!!

12) John Tester (MT) - (406) 365-2391

Honorable Mention - Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Begich (AK), Kent Conrad (ND), Bill Nelson (FL)

We can Beat this Thing!!!

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.

I caught a bit of Rush in my travels recently taking Frank Luntz to task over his health care strategy memo

Let's just say Rush does not think the Luntz plan advocates a teachable moment in conservative principals--and basically is a return to tactical engagement on the opponent's turf.

I'm not going to read a 26 page memo and dissect it and opine on whether this is  fair criticism. I have a much more strategic problem with this.

We are letting the Democrats change the subject.

I noted a few weeks back

Health care is tailor made for Democrats for 2010. It enables them to justify massive federal spending to help all those cast adrift by the misfortunes of the private sector economy, while avoiding an explanation as to how they intend to restore the economy to health. 

Chris Dodd is a leading indicator. He's already fired his bullets and is quickly exhausting the ammunition he has on failed bailouts.  Barring a completely unexpected rebound in the nation's economy, he will have nothing to add to the public discussion on the economy prior to the midterms.....

Watch other Democrats mirror this approach as the public sours quickly on the "bailouts to nowhere"

I don't think this line is in Luntz's magmun opus, but I offer it gratis to Republican congressional candidates.

After what Chris Dodd has done to the Banking Industry, why in God's name would we let him try and reform health care? 

The Democrats "own" the economy now.  Let them defend Bailout Nation. Do not let them relocate the political battlefield to more favorable ground.

FYI: Dodd's given up on beating the health care drum up here in CT.. As the Google ads how, he's now identified credit card issuers as the new bad guy. Hope Vice President Biden has heard this.

Upon reading this comment, remarking on Specter's treachery, my interest was piqued.  Now that the Dems have the magic 60, one of our local liberal "skeptics" now wants "real universal health care".  I am assuming that by "real" he means something along the lines of state-run health care.  And I have to ask:

WHY?  Why on EARTH would you want such a thing?

I understand that for many on the left, health care isn't an issue of finances or even of medicine, but of morals.  They see it as a moral crime that each and every single person in this country doesn't have blue-chip health insurance.  I don't understand this argument either - what if a person doesn't want health insurance? what if a person would rather make do with lower-quality health insurance and use the difference in insurance premiums for some other priority? - but let's just concede the point for now.  Still, questions remain:

1. Why would you want the state to run it all?  If you believe the liberals, the state that they want to run everybody's health care is the same one that, under George Bush, tortured people, spied on innocent Americans, started a pre-emptive war for no good reason, and bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina so badly that lives were lost needlessly.  And this is the state to which you want to transfer immense amounts of power over your personal medical decisions?

2. Which medical procedures would and would not be run by the state?  How about abortion?  Of course, the liberals now in charge would have no qualms in demanding that taxpayers subsidize abortions (even though they should have some qualms).  But suppose the next Republican president and Republican Congress reverses that decision - no more taxpayer subsidized abortions.  NOW you pro-choicers are in a pinch - no tax money for abortions AND the state runs the entire health care industry!  What would women do for abortions then?  Would there even be private clinics left after the nationalization of the health care industry imagined by many liberals?  Electing Republicans, in this case, would be effectively equivalent to the outlawing of abortion.  Do you really want availability of abortions to be subject to the result of the next election?  Are you that confident that you will always be able to elect pro-choice Democrats forever?  And the same argument can be made for any controversial procedure - fertility treatments, etc.

3. Now, admit it - you have bad habits.  We all do.  For my part, I drink too much beer and eat too much red meat.  Whatever your bad habits happen to be, they undoubtedly have some adverse health consequences.  (That's why the habit is a bad one.)  Should taxpayers bail you out of your poor choices?  We have seen the aftermath of Bailout Nation and it is not a pretty one.  When the state bailed out banks, what did they do?  Did they use the money to correct their problems?  No they used the money buy up other banks, thereby exascerbating their problems.  And when the state bailed out the car industry, what did they do?  Did they reform their practices?  No, instead the state got even more deeply involved in the operation of the car industry, going so far as to fire the CEO of GM and to guarantee car warranties (I guess I missed the 'car warranty clause' of the Constitution, but it's apparently in there somewhere right next to the 'abortion clause').  We should learn from these experiences, not repeat the mistakes.  Based on these cautionary tales, what will happen when the state tries to bail out individuals from their poor health care choices?

(a) The individuals will be allowed to go right on engaging in the bad habits (like the banks), which will lead to public outrage that 'less deserving' individuals are receiving scarce tax dollars for expensive medical procedures; or

(b) The individuals will be scrutinized to within an inch of their lives (like the car makers), leading to an incredible loss of personal autonomy and freedom over one's decision-making power.

There really isn't another alternative here.  What will happen when I, after years of beer drinking and cheeseburger eating, demand to get a 'free' heart transplant and 'free' liver transplant?  Do you think I'll get them, no questions asked, no repercussions, and without controversy?  If so you are living in fantasy land.  And the same can happen to anyone with bad habits, and that would be everyone.

So I am truly at a loss to explain why so many liberals are so enthusiastic about state-run health care.  It would seem to me that such a proposition leads to so many illiberal results.

Here is a better, if naive, suggestion: The state can simply hand out $3,000 each year to each man, woman and child in the nation for the purpose of buying health insurance.  A rough cost estimate, based on 300 million people, would be $900 billion annually.  For a family of four that corresponds to a health insurance premium of $12,000 per year, which is close to average in this country.  Sure that's a lot of money but it would undoubtedly be cheaper, both in dollars and in liberty, than state-run health care:

• It satisfies objection number 1: no bungling or oppressive government will be running health care.  It will remain private.
• It satisfies objection number 2: no need for the state to get into the business of deciding which procedures are subsidized or not, that would be entirely up to the individual when they decide which health insurance policy that they get.
• And it could be structured to satisfy objection number 3 as well, as long as the state didn't nannify the subsidy.

It's not perfect but it's a great deal better than letting the state run it all.

Congress is buzzing about attacking health care after the Easter recess. Coming off the success of the tea parties nationwide, let’s carry that momentum to the fight to protect our rights as patients and Americans.

First, for those of you who are ready to act, the practical tools to get you started. Then, the background.

1. Sign this petition: It asks politicians to “First, Do No Harm” as they consider health reform. A quick look will give you plenty to shout about! 

2. Enter this video contest: Think about all your fellow Americans who need to understand why we believe as we do about health care. Why don’t we want the federal government making decisions about our health and controlling our insurance coverage? Make a creative video that will reach your neighbors and arrest their attention! 

What it’s all about:

If you’ve been focused on Tax Day and need a little catching up on health care, we’ve got you covered. The Health Policy Consensus Group, a coalition of free-market health policy experts, put together a statement expressing the dangers of proposals on the table. This gives a great rundown of what needs to be stopped, and why. Pass it around! [In case you’re wondering, the next Consensus Group statement will detail what we’re FOR – but first, we felt we needed to explain why we’re against these proposals.]

Some background:

Health care is a tax issue, too. We will be called upon to fund the $634-billion (some now say $1-trillion) health agenda of President Obama, and the billions for the Health and Human Services Department to head up health IT and comparative effectiveness research. But that’s only the beginning.

An individual mandate for health insurance – ordering everyone to purchase a certain government-determined policy – would carry tax penalties for those who don’t comply. In Massachusetts, where they’re a step ahead on this experiment, that annual penalty for noncompliance has passed the $1,000 mark and is rising. 

Even more likely: new mandates on businesses to provide a government-designated level of benefits and to pay the piper if they don’t. Punishing businesses for hiring people isn’t the way to help workers already struggling in this economy.

Each new tax chips away at our freedom. And there are other freedoms in the balance in this debate. The creation of a public insurance program, whether it looks like a Medicare-for-all or a slight knockoff, threatens our options for health insurance. The hallmark of Medicare and Medicaid, those huge government insurance programs, is paying doctors and hospitals at much lower rates. Private insurance – that is, the rest of us – makes up the difference now, but what if private insurance isn’t around any more?

A new public (and yes, that means government-run, even though The New York Times thinks that term is fearmongering) health insurance plan would be able to set its premium prices far lower than private insurance. What business can compete with tax subsidies and severe underpricing?

Along with the artificially low premiums, a public insurance plan would more than likely pay doctors and hospitals less for their services than private insurance does. Medicare doesn’t even cover health providers’ costs. If millions more Americans join a public plan that pays like Medicare, we could face a serious crisis just to keep doctors and hospitals in business. Considering we already have a shortage of primary care doctors, this doesn’t sound like a grand idea.

You spread the word and got fired up about your taxes. Now what about your health? Your health, your freedom to make choices about your family’s health care, not to mention MORE taxes – these are worth your time.  

Sign the petition

Enter the video contest

New polling data released yesterday shows the majority of the American public supports a Bush Administration regulation protecting the conscience rights of health care providers, including doctors and nurses, who object to participating in controversial procedures such as abortion and sterilization.

The poll found overwhelming support for a patient’s right to seek care from a doctor who agrees with them on sensitive moral issues surrounding their health. But the apparent divide between Washington and the American people on this important issue couldn’t be greater. The Obama Administration wants to rescind federal regulations known as "conscience protections." Today is the final day to register a comment (click here to leave yours).

The poll, which surveyed 800 American adults of both political parties and independents (39% Democrats, 33% Republican, and 22% Independent), found 87% of Americans believe it is important to “make sure that health care professionals are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.” The results held true across the ideological and partisan lines, as 78% of Americans describing themselves as “pro-choice” supported health care provider conscience protections.

While the United States has a long tradition of protecting individual conscience rights stretching from the First Amendment to laws protecting conscientious objectors in time of war, Americans’ views on health care provider conscience rights are as much rooted in self-interest as they are in altruism towards doctors: 88% of Americans surveyed said it is important to them that they hold a similar set of morals as their doctors, nurses, and other health care providers.

Without strong protection of conscience rights for health care providers, Americans know their health care—both in access to and quality of care—will suffer, as faith-based doctors and other professionals leave the profession rather than be forced to violate their conscience.

Thorny issues of morality and ethics abound in health care, ranging from the beginning of life (abortion, in vitro fertilization, etc) to the end of life (physician-assisted suicide, advance directives, etc). Patients have a right to see a doctor of their choosing, without fear of government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Patients and their families have the right to have tough conversations about, for example, life support for themselves or their loved one, with a medical professional that shares their beliefs surrounding end-of-life care. The farther government intrudes in these deeply personal issues by compelling doctors to violate their conscience, the more budgets and balance sheets will replace compassion and caring.

Failure to protect conscience rights for health care providers will have a direct, negative effect on patients’ ability to get the care they need. For example, Catholic hospitals alone make up about 20% of all hospitals in the country and serve over 5.5 million patients a year. If these institutions’ conscience rights are not protected, they could be forced to shut their doors or reduce services. Undoubtedly, poor and rural patients served by these institutions will suffer the most in such a scenario.

In spite of this, the Obama Administration and Congress seem intent on rolling back conscience protections in health care. After less than two months in office, the Obama Administration proposed to eliminate the conscience protection regulation. Last Friday, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have included conscience protections in President Obama’s $634 billion “down payment” for health care reform. The amendment, offered by Senator Tom Coburn, himself a doctor, would have prohibited government coercion of patients to enroll in specific health insurance plans or to see pre-selected health care providers. Given the chance, the Senate said “no” to giving patients freedom to choose a doctor that shares their beliefs on important moral and ethical issues.

While the American people strongly support conscience rights and freedom of choice in health care, Congress and the Obama Administration are moving rapidly in the opposite direction: toward increased government intrusion into Americans’ most private and personal health care decisions.

The public has until midnight tonight to let the Department of Health and Human Services know its support of conscience rights in the health care work place. Visit ADoctorsRight.com to register your comment with HHS today.

If the economy sucks as an issue--change the subject

Right now the economy is not the biggest issue, to paraphrase Vince Lombardi, it's the only issue 

So what is Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd talking about in his travels across Connecticut?

Health Care 

This is the issue Dodd is attaching himself to as he tries to help an ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy deliver universal health care, a possible capstone for Kennedy's career and a potential savior for Dodd's.It's a gamble that could lift his sagging job-approval rating or hasten the stunning erosion of support for Connecticut's senior member of Congress.

Of course, there was no problem finding hundreds of folks who feel they;ve been done wrong by the American health care system.  The irony, of course, is that Dodd has had nearly thirty five years to fix the problems in health care, yet I am sure the folks who showed at this event think matters have gotten worse. 

The CT Republicans have characterized this as   

Dodd Enters Political Rehab , and as for the situation surrounding Dodd's health care record, maybe the folks in the victim class ought to examine who got what they paid for from the dear senator. And it was more than a shoulder to cry on. Open Secrets documents that lawyers and the insurance industry were among the top contributors to Dodd's quixotic Presidential race.  Indeed, lawyers and insurers have contributed over $5 million to Dodd's various re-election campaigns.

BTW, want a definition of chutzpah, Dodd once denounced Hillary Clinton for "mismanaging health care"

Now there is a way to make changes to health care that both lawyers and insurers like. This , of course means consumers, taxpayers or providers get to choose who gets the pipe.

But why is Dodd not touting his expertise on the economy?  His own Senate web claims his role in the TARP bailout was "his finest hour"?    Then again, after playing "a central role" in drafting the bailout, he complains that it failed. (which is why I said he "pulled a Plaxico")

I believe Dodd will need more health care of his own tending to self-inflicted GSW's Just today, despite lamenting the poor results of TARP, Dodd lavished praise on one of its architects and voted him in as Treasury Secretary 

  Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said that while he would "not minimize" the tax issue, he assured colleagues that, "This is, I believe, one of the most talented people I've met in the area of financial services."

Well, Chris , remember when you said the banks were sound; well, now, Joe Biden is saying we will need another massive TARP II bank bailout.

Let's see, a trillion bucks or so for stimulus, more than a trillion for banks, another auto bailout  on the way ,  pretty soon, we are talking real money, now aren;t we? 

And every indication is that Dodd's signature effort--to try and slow down foreclosures--is a dismal failure.  

So what to do when the economy is in the tank and lots of folks think you put it there?

Change the subject!

Health care is tailor made for Democrats for 2010. It enables them to justify massive federal spending to help all those cast adrift by the misfortunes of the private sector economy, while avoiding an explanation as to how they intend to restore the economy to health. 

Chris Dodd is a leading indicator. He's already fired his bullets and is quickly exhausting the ammunition he has on failed bailouts.  Barring a completely unexpected rebound in the nation's economy, he will have nothing to add to the public discussion on the economy prior to the midterms.

The Republicans would be in need of the political version of national health care to deal with insanity if they follow the obvious script herein. Try and get the Republicans to buy into bipartisan Bailout Nation, and then, once they have as little credibility on the economy as the Democrats will have going into the midterms; change the agenda into a referendum on "helping the less fortunate" and paint the Republicans as cold hearted.

Watch other Democrats mirror this approach as the public sours quickly on the "bailouts to nowhere"

Many folks on message boards in CT have an obvious riposte which the national Republican party ought to emulate.

After what Chris Dodd has done to the Banking Industry, why in God's name would we let him try and reform health care? 

The rhetoric about "stimulus" gets more head-spinning every day. As I note in my Galen Institute post today, folks like Heritage's Robert Book have picked up on the insanity of spending more (taxpayer) money where we're supposed to be reducing costs in health care.

Interestingly, we're not the only nation trying to spend our way out of an economic downturn in this area. China has announced it will provide universal health care for all 1.3 billion of its people.

A Chinese study showed "that in government-sponsored health insurance areas, people are spending more" -- and they see this as a good thing!

So, more government financing should strengthen the economy... and raise health care costs, too?

Those who are commenting on the stimulus should call attention to this disconnect in logic.

While you're at it, spread word far and wide about this scary language from the House on comparative effectiveness -- two long words that mean government could decide which drugs and treatments are acceptable. Here you go:

"By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and health care professionals, those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and, in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed."

This is part of the "stimulus."

Read more.

Since none of our so-called leaders are going to present an alternative economic recovery package, I'll do it myself.  Items are in no particular order except the order in which they came to me.

1) Slash the Corporate Income Tax Rate to 15% - The United States currently has the Second Highest Corporate Tax Rate in the World.  This puts our companies at a gigantic competitive disadvantage internationally and retards both job growth and the stock market here at home.  Cutting corporate taxes will spur a business led investment boom in the United States.

2) Make Bush Reductions in Capital Gains and Dividends Permanent - While I would love to slash these grossly counterproductive rates further, that's not feasible politically at the moment.  The next best thing would be to send a permanent signal to financial markets.

3) Abolish the Employer Half of the Payroll Tax - As liberals frequently point out, 80% of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.  They deserve a big tax cut.  This will also act as a major job creation mechanism.

4) Pass Colombia, South Korea, and Panama Free Trade Agreements - This move is more symbolic than substative, however, it is crucially important.  Passing these agreements would signal to our trading partners that the United States will not turn protectionist like we did in the 1930's.

Passing the Colombia agreement would also weaken an increasingly despotic Hugo Chavez.

5) Establish a 15% flat rate on All Income - This will leave Americans with more money to spend, invest, or do whatever the heck they want to do with it.  It will also do away with the deadweight loss from tax code complexity.  Many other Countries have done this successfully.

Should this prove politically unfeasable, we should still strive to do this for everyone except the top income tax bracket.

6) Create A National Market for Medical Insurance - Rising Medical Costs have been a major economic drag for the past decade.  While the reasons for this are worthy of their own blog post, creating a national market for Medical Insurance instead of 50 separate state markets is the easiest way to lower costs.

7) Drill, Baby, Drill - In addition to harming those nice guys in Tehran, Moscow, and Caracas, increased energy production at home will create oodles of jobs.  It might even make the auto bailout a moot point.

8) Immeadiate Expensing for Business Investment - This will also create a boom in business investment.

9) Boost Defense Spending - This is a policy I support for other reasons.  That said, defense spending has a higher Keynesian Multiplier than anything President Elect Obama is proposing.

10) Abolish the Alternative Maximum Tax - This wildly unfair tax should just be abolished.  I don't care about the rationale.

11) Abolish Sarbanes/Oxley - This onerous regulation, passed during the Enron panic, drives capital and businesses overseas without preventing fraud at home.  Repeal of SarBox would ignite a stock market boom!

12) Abolish Mark to Market - This obscure accounting rule forces companies unnecessarily to lower the value of their assets relative to what they could be sold for.  This was a major factor in the credit freeze.

13) Abolish the Death Tax - Any change in tax policy that both antagonizes liberals and hurts Warren Buffet must be a good idea.