Howdy:

I know what follows involves Vermont but I believe one of the ideas presented is universally appliciable, and I would really appreciate your criticism(s).

I am stunned, a local publisher wants to meet with me as a result of this piece. Probably just to talk, but do let me dream a moment more...of a new career...of being discovered....

Ok, let the criticism fly!-)

--------------------- Re: Health care tax ideas for Vermont Senators

---------------------------------------- Hello:

I hope I am not out of line, but I would like to respond to some of these ideas.

1) Is there no one in Montpelier, who seriously discusses cutting back the size, scope and cost of government? Isn't slashing costs our only hope for fiscal responsibility?

2) Can it really be true that our public servants, elected and otherwise, do not recognize, that the costs of the bureaucracies and programs, including teachers pensions, are inherently unsustainable?

3) The Trust Funds proposal is interesting.

4) Why shouldn't Land Trusts pay taxes appropriate to the surrounding area. I say tax 'em like everyone else. Wouldn't that provide significant property tax relief for the remainder of us? (One organization(Nature Conservancy), w/$3 Billion in assets, pays no taxes!?! Average taxpayers end up taking up the property tax slack?!? Where is the OUTRAGE, or Bernie's working people spiel??? Finally, the public deserves to know who owns/controls these assets???)

5) Without question, the operational rules of Non Profits need to be revisited! Foremost they should not be allowed to compete in a marketplace where there are private providers available; effectively, the Non Profits diminish the tax paying businesses market share through subsidized pricing and some times put small but productive business folk out of work entirely, while further eroding the tax base. My wife could go on.-)

6) Politicians How about we just make what Gov. Dean and Mayor Clavelle did a jailable offense. But seriously, let's forget the tax angle and just change the rule to something like, "While one is holding elective/ governmental office, they shall be inelegible, in any manner, to pursue any other governmental position." It might make for more citizen legislators and less career pols by forcing them to get a real job periodically.

7) Non-resident students I'll pass, although I am certain students provide immense local and state revenue.

8) Health Care As nearly all government is a proverbally poor manager of tax payers funds. And too, is an unnecessary middle man who produces nothing in the process of regulation but more in the way of bureaucratic expense than the private sector would permit, thereby allowing less cash for services to be rendered: why don't we move to a universal system by mandate?

By this I mean, the State, &/or the Fed's, would mandate(like SS or Medicare presently) that once one begins taxable work that, one must subscribe to a private insurance group of their choosing, combined with a health savings account so that contributing productive(working) individuals retain the greater portion of the benefit of their capital(for buying a home against, e.g., like 401k's I believe).

(This might very well encourage realistic economic education and greater initative, at an earlier age, due to the students and their parents knowing they must designate a manager of theirs funds prior to earning pay.)

The thrust of the system would be reoriented toward a preventive maintenance system, involving minimally agreed upon annual or biannual, age appropriate check ups(including vision and dentistry). Thus providing for the general welfare, with another appropriate reason for government mandate, rather than direct management.

Government could then return to its somewhat more suitable role of arbitor, when necessary, with less conflict of interest; which would undoubtedly, also reduce the level of fraud, thus reducing costs further, as private profit oriented concerns would more tightly police themselves and their clients for self interests sake.

Retirement/SS/Health Care might best be combined and minimally mandated in like manner while leaving competitive profit oriented concerns of investment, insurance and health care professionals to do what they know best. I would think that the universality of contribution; the inherent cost savings of preventative medicine, long term; the natural realignment of cultural attitudes toward the incentive of reporting irresponsible, or fraudulent use; removal of the unproductive drag of the governmental cut; the flexible movement of capital within the marketplace, thus theoretically encouraging competition and efficiencies; among other overlooked factors, would surely provide a useful, naturally cost effective, consumer friendly, universal health system. At least I can't imagine why something along these lines wouldn't work, aside from government knows best interference.

Hope that's not too much of a response.

---------------------------------- Didya see how I got that JBT plug in there Al? -)