There are two great reasons to have some backup food/supplies on hand:

1) economic difficulty (job loss, inflation)

2) regional catastrophe/disaster.  (hurricane, earthquake, long power outage, etc.)

I choose items with an expiration date at least 18 months from the time of purchase.  This way they can function as your food storage for a year, then be brought out with plenty of time to use.   I do my shopping for this every January, then cycle the previous years’ storage into our daily use food.   It is all the kind of stuff I eat regularly, so really each January I am just buying next January’s food (if all goes well).  My list reflects a pretty budget-conscious way of doing it – you could add more fun stuff if you like.

In a survival/catastrophe situation where there is no power, the foods I have listed below are mostly usable with little or no cooking or refrigeration.  However, in this case, water is still needed – much more than is listed.  Water is one topic you should discuss/research to know how much you would need in given circumstances, and how to store it or purify it.

Be sure your food storage area is dry and cool to minimize problems.

>> This list is not intended to be any official health or survival advice.  Do your own research and thinking on the subject - and make your own plan.  I would argue that if you have no plan, however, mine is definitely better than yours!

Download this checklist in document format to use as a starter template for yourself.

Meat

q  Tuna   24 cans

q  Chicken Breast       5 big cans

q  Hunts Spaghetti Meat Sauce     8 cans

q  Ravioli Cans   6 cans

q  Chili    4 cans

q  Cream of Chicken 6 big cans

Vegetables

q  Green Beans  24 cans

q  Corn   24 cans

q  Baked Beans 12 cans

q  Cream of Mushroom   10 cans

q  Chili Beans     24 cans

q  Olives     6 cans

Fruit

q  Mandarin Oranges     12 cans

q  Applesauce     4 big jars

q  Grape Jelly     2 jars

q  Pineapple Chunks       6 cans

q  Raisins    2 containers

Drinks

q  Powdered Gatorade   3lb container

q  Powdered Lemonade     5lb container

q  Cocoa Mix large canister

q  Baby Formula     1 can

q  Bottled Water    36 sm. bottles

q  Water Jugs     A bunch

Other Foods & Flavors

q  Bullion Cubes        1 container

q  Oatmeal      50 instant packets

q  Vegetable Oil         2 containers

q  Olive Oil         1 jar

q  Ketchup      2 bottles

q  Vinegar       1 container

q  Brown Rice    2 bags

q  White Rice      2 bags

q  Honey Peanuts       2 large canisters

q  Baking Soda   3 boxes

q  Salt    1 canister

q  Wheat Pasta 4 boxes

q  Multivitamin   1 adult container / 1 child container

q  Popcorn      1 bag

q  Canned Soups   Any

q  Peanut Butter    4 canisters

Other Items to Store

q  Unused manual can opener

q  Matches

q  Spray Lysol

q  Box of Garbage Bags

q  Napkins

q  Paper Plates

q  Toilet Paper

q  Bleach

q  Laundry Soap

q  Box of Candles

q  Crank Flashlights/Radio

q  Batteries

q  A few big latching tubs to store the bagged/boxed/smaller items in.

Download this checklist in document format to use as a starter template for yourself.

Another option to consider would be FoodInsurance.com, which provides some survival foods prepackaged for disasters, etc.

Capitalism isn't the sort of girl that you want to be seen in public with these days, is she?  But I don't care what the other guys say anymore - I'll gladly take her to a Washington D.C. dinner party  - and sit her right down next to those shallow, brainless trophy wives that couldn't win a debate with the mirror if they tried.  My honey's a keeper, and I'm not afraid to tell you why.

I don't love Capitalism because she's made me rich (although, compared to the worldwide standard of living, I suppose she has), I love her because she keeps me free; she allows me to live my life for my own purposes without some Parent-state telling me what I can and can't do.  

As an American, I'm so used to this freedom that I really can't imagine what life would be without it.  A few hundred years ago my forefathers got sick of Nanny Britain bossing them around, so they up and moved out - and I'd say they did pretty well for themselves.  Now, I sense my country on the verge of moving in with that that meddling woman Socialism (who in a scary-old-lady way seems friendly with that crotchety Marx character from the fitness club).  

But why would I leave the woman who has made my dreams come true?

So, I've set out to list my reasons for loving Capitalism - the free market system.  If I'm moving anywhere, she's going with me.  And if I know her the way I think I do, any move I make with her will be an upgrade.

I know I'm incurring the arrogant grins and chuckles of too-good-to-be-me university professors and White House staffers.  Laugh on, and toast to Mao or Mussolini or your mother-in-law.  I don't care.  Because my woman has never done me wrong.  I'm proud to be in love with Capitalism, and I want to the whole world to know.  (If you've ever been in love before, you understand.)  So, here are my reasons, America:

Capitalism, Capitalism, let me count thy ways...

You've ended the threat of famine or starvation for me, my family, and everyone I know who embraces you.  Long ago, humans fought tooth and nail for the basics of life - now, I can't remember the last time I felt hungry.

You ended blood-and-war culture, like what I see in those movies about the ancient world.  I don't have to battle my neighbor with a pick-axe for rights to goat-grazing land.

You raised the living standard for all, even people far outside your reach.  How else do those remote tribes in Papua New Guinea drink cola beverages and wear sports t-shirts from America?  

You've channelled my human motivations into doing my best for others.  Rather than stealing and pillaging to grow my wealth, you encourage me to get educated, create new blessings for the world, and do things that my fellow man needs done.  

You compel my "enlightened self-interest" to make me productive and purposeful, rather than natural selfish greed making me lazy and bitter.  Instead of wishing for what others have (and trying to take it from them), you help me discover ways to earn it myself, by doing good for others in the form of services they seek or products they need.

You allow me to set my own financial goals and order my own priorities.  I'm not beholden to some authority somewhere who gives me an allotted allowance as long as I do their will.  You don't treat me as a child doing chores, but as an adult who can add real, unique value to life.

You allow me to share with others out of my abundance.  It seems like every time I follow your lead, Capitalism, I end up with abundance - enough to survive on, and probably enough to share a bit as well.  So when we do run into rough spots here and there, you've got me covered, especially if I was bright enough to save a little abundance for a rainy day.  And you've always got more opportunities available around the corner. 

You allow me to team up with others with similar skills to produce more than I could alone.  I guess that's synergy - and you make it possible, sweetheart.  I can join in with friends, co-workers, or investment partners with common goals in mind - and together we can do great good for the world, and provide prosperity for our own families and futures.

You align my work and money with my values: honesty, integrity, hard work and self-reliance.  Under your care, I'm not compelled to take what isn't mine, or to get some government muscle man to shake down my neighbors so that I can get a free lunch.  You encourage me to provide for my own and to work for an honest day's pay (or to pay someone else an honest day's pay!).  You value my private property and compel me to take care of it, or even add value to it.

You root out corruption, waste, and fraud.  Yeah, I know those things are part of my nature, so I'm glad you prevent me from going to far in any of those directions.  If I get morally off-track, I'll loose my customers, or my job, or worse!  But the more I save, the more I produce, and the better I treat people, the better my lifestyle or business becomes.  That's why I really don't want to move in with that woman Socialism just to save on rent - she looks for others to pay her bills - and compromises her morality with that fellow Marx.  It's just disgusting to think about.

You organize my labor efficiently so I can maximize my purpose (and my profit!).  Yep, I said it.  I'm happy for the paycheck I receive.  And I know that if my company goes under, I really wasn't being as useful as I could potentially be somewhere else.  Even with some temporary pain, you always seem to put people in the position where they can make the most difference, and do the most good, with the skills they have. And when things don't work out so well, you've got plenty of others around who can share from their abundance to help out friends in need.

You allow the free trade of things and ideas, based on my own choice.  I'm so glad I don't have to beg Mom for a toy at the store anymore - if I want something, I can go get it, thanks to free market magic that puts the products of the whole world within my personal reach.  

You lead me toward ever-expanding wealth and limitless opportunity for growth.  If I follow your lead, I'll end up richer - and so will my neighbors.  It's a beautiful thing (just like you, my darling).

You prod me on toward improving products and services.  I don't know how else to say it: "You make me a better man."

You treat all people as equals, and I respect you for that.  Success in your eyes has nothing to do with color or creed, where someone started or what politicians they're in bed with.  You give everybody a shot - those who are willing to work can reap the rewards - and probably do far better than "just survive."  After all, didn't you give us a society where people below the poverty line still have electricity, microwaves, TVs, cars with sport rims, and frequent trips to that Mexican restaurant?  (That reminds me - my love - that so many people who live without you and see what I have - they're trying to move in too!  Looking into your eyes right now, I don't blame them.)

You motivate me to invent and innovate.  There's got to be a way to do things just a little better than before - and you give me the push I need to figure it out.  Touch-screen phones.  Airbags.  HVAC systems.  Hybrid corn.   A better mousetrap?  Still working on it!

You've given me unprecedented personal freedom to build, spend, travel, or give.  With you at my side, I can be the captain of my own ship, literally.  And thanks to you, some crazy bank out there is willing to insure it!

You keep me free from servitude to the Biggest Man.  I don't mind working for the Man at the office or the factory, because he can't really control me.  At the end of the day, he has to answer to you, sugarcake.  But I know one really Big Man who could control me - he could even break up our relationship.  You know, that government guy who always gets in the way of our plans?  He promises the the world to me, but why would I believe him?  He only has what he has by taking it from you.  No thanks Washington D.C., I'll stay faithful to - my ever-beautiful and sweet - Capitalism.

You give me the satisfaction of reaping rewards from my life's work.  When I come home at night to a warm hug and a hot dinner, I'm thankful, and I'm satisfied.  I didn't take what I have from others.  I didn't wring it out of my richer friends via forcible government "compassion".  I earned it.  Fair and square.  I accomplished something good, I made the lives of others a little better by trading my goods and services with them. I may not have all I want, yet.  I'm working on it.

That's the point.

And that's why I love you so.

Obama and his liberal friends in Congress have subjected 873,846 Americans to lifelong slavery this year. I'll explain this "new American slavery" in a moment.

An old biblical proverb says that the "borrower is servant to the lender."  And, as all of us know, our deficit (the amount we're spending beyond what we're taking in) was $1.42 trillion dollars in 2009.  Our national debt (accumlated deficits from this and all previous years) is pushing $12 trillion, and there are $55 trillion in entitlement promises yet to be fulfilled.

The proposed fix: "cut the deficit in half over four years."  What?  So you run up a $1.5 trillion dollar credit card bill this year - with the promise that in future years you'll only run it up $750 billion?  That's not fiscal disipline, that's insanity.  And, I might add, it's a lie.  Nothing our government is doing now will lead to a reduction in deficits.  Everything on Congress' agenda is about higher costs, higher taxes, higher spending and more regulations.

There's no intention to repay this debt, which is why I believe it represents one of the greatest moral failures in American history (see p.1 of this series); a national sin akin to the slave trade.

For short-term political gain and to feed the ever-growing entitlement class, liberal politicians are enslaving you and I, and our kids, to mountains of debt that will weigh us down years after their reign of rhetoric-driven spending.  (Yes, yes, the Republicans are guilty too.  The Bush years saw some big deficits and new entitlements, and they are partly to blame for this year's deficit - to the tune of hundreds of billions.  But Obama and Congressional Democrats have taken things to a new level.)  

Consider: this fiscal year (2009), the government sunk $1.42 trillion dollars further in the hole.  Let's imagine that, long term, the interest on that debt is around 4%.  (And that low number could rise if confidence in our government falters).

$1,420,000,000,000 x 4% = $56,800,000,000 ($56.8 billion)

So next year, the IRS will need to collect $56.8 billion more in taxes, representing the hard work of thousands of Americans, just to pay for this year's overspending.  And, sadly, all of that work, sweat, and creativity will be taxed away from thousands of people - and it won't even pay one dime of the principal on the debt.  It will just pay the interest - meaning that the next year, another $56,800,000,000 will be required as well.  

It gets worse.  Obama's deficit for next year will be another astronomical figure, especially if he gets his wishes for vast new government health care, more "stimulus spending," energy and immigration policies.  So, that $1+ trillion deficit in the following year will add another $50,000,000,000 ongoing burden to the U.S. taxpayers.  

And all of this, on top of the $400 billion we're already spending on debt interest.  Within a few years, debt interest will be the largest single expense of the U.S. government, literally, the biggest "bill" in history.  And the bill will keep coming, and keep growing.  And not one cent of our massive payments will pay off the principal.

Where do these mounting billions go? Into the pockets of the debt-owners, the new American taskmasters.  Some of them are private citizens, some of them are banks and holding companies, some of them are foreign governments.  My argument isn't with them - after all, without bond-buyers, the U.S. government would be in real trouble.  But at the end of the day, the result is that tax-and-overspend economics will increasingly become tax-to-pay-interest economics.  The government will require more and more of our money (and thus, our liberty), and will be able to provide less and less in return for it.

Now, what about these 873,846 debt slaves?  

Here's the logic (I pray to God my math is wrong here, so please correct me if you can):

The overwhelming debt and interest numbers don't just represent extra zeros on a government spreadsheet, they represent hard work, the productivity and innovation of American industries, the career dreams of your children - all subjected to the despair of endless debt. It means that the equivalent of nearly a million American citizens will forfeit their income and receive absolutely nothing in return.  I call that slavery.  

An average American worker produces about $65,000 in value annually.  Obama and his friends will need the productivity of 873,846 lifelong, full-time debt slaves just to pay interest on this year's addition to the national debt.  

Realistically, interest rates will probably go up in the future, as the government will need to attract more buyers for its growing debts.  At 5.5% average interest (it was almost 5% in 07-08), we'd spend $80 billion a year on the interest on this year's debt alone, enslaving the equivalent of 1.2 million Americans for the long-term.  And, if the rate were to tick up to 6.5%, we'd be looking at more than 1.4 million debt slaves.

That's a whole lot of slaves, many of whom voted for "hope and change."  

Added to the pile of debt we already have, and the vast projections of debt stemming from Obama's spending proposals, we're looking at ten million+ debt slaves within a couple of years.  And for what?

You do the math.  A new American slavery indeed.

* In the original post of this material, I was working off of projected numbers that ended up being higher than the government's report, issued October 16th.  I corrected the math accordingly in the post above.  And while the "good news" is that the budget deficit was less than I'd figured - thus fewer debt slaves, the "bad news" is the equivalent of 873,846 American workers will labor their entire year away in 2010, just to pay debt interest from 2009.  And then they'll need to jump right in and keep working hard in 2011, and 2012, and 2025, and...

Great examples of debt-financed investment might be the interstate highway system, capital improvements to our military, building a canal, cleaning up a disaster area, etc. The most brilliant use of investment debt in American history was probably that incurred by Thomas Jefferson in the purchase of the Louisiana territory - a dramatic expansion of land for a bargain-basement price.  

There is an obvious limitation on this borrow-to-get-rich scheme in government: politicians are unable to distinguish between politically-expedient spending splurges and real investments for the nation.  

Anything a big-donor special interest group requests of a politican is touted as an "important, essential investment."  Even if it has no potential of growing our national income.  Even if we really can't afford it.

Free health care.  Cash-for-clunkers.  Auto union bailouts.  Home buyer credits.  "Make work" stimulus projects.

Items like these dominate the national discussion - "consumer spending" rather than "capital spending."  Here's the difference:  consumer spending is when you run up your credit card balance eating out and traveling, then have to buckle down and pay off those bills later on, often with high interest.  You may have had fun along the way, but you have nothing to show for it and no accumulated wealth to pass along to your kids.  You end up working harder and longer for less and less. Capital spending is when you borrow to start a business or improve your home - you'll pay a price for the debt, sure, but the wealth you'll build will hopefully out-grow the debt you started with.  At the end of the day, you have something that creates wealth for the future.

(To be fair, some of the recent stimulus plans from the federal government involve capital improvements to the nation.  While I favor the improvements, I don't believe that "yes we can" means "yes we should."  And I don't buy the notion that taxing private money to pay for public projects is a way to actually "stimulate" the economy.  It just reshuffles the dollars away from the people who earned them and into the pockets of mostly inefficient government bureaucracy.  It "stimulates" the growth of the government and hinders the growth of personal wealth.)

If the federal government wanted to borrow a trillion dollars for an investment that they deemed important for our national security, liberty, or prosperity - I'd be interested in finding out more.  I don't know what that might be - an upgrade to our military forces, an initiative to open up space commerce to average people, a refurbishing of our national infrastructure, an environmental cleanup and restoration plan - if it could be demonstrated that borrowing for these causes would "pay for themselves" in the long run, we might be on to something.  Before they fired up the debt-printing-presses, however, I'd want to see proof that local governments or private industries could not handle the project on their own.  Then, if the item was Constitutional, the debt was affordable, and the investment return was widely agreed upon, I'd raise my hand in favor of the plan.

But social welfare, entitlement "feel good" spending is precisely the opposite of constructive investment debt.  Entitlement spending results in never-ending growth of debt principal and interest. It's "eating out" on the credit card every night, with no intention of letting up (and even adding some extra dinner guests along the way)!  It's promising more and more benefits to people and planning to pay interest on those benefits tomorrow.  The only trouble is, "tomorrow has a enough trouble of its own."  And so, the debt grows.  Billions, trillions - without any hope of repayment -- actually, without even an intention of repayment.

My concern is not with "debt" itself, but with our use of it. In this series, I intend to prove that one of the greatest moral failures in our history is unfolding before our eyes - every time we add another zero to our already mountainous debt, every time we add another unfunded promise to the needy out of "compassion," we fail again - we fail our kids, who will labor their entire lives away and forfeit an increasing lion-share of their income to pay for our bad decisions; we fail our principles, allowing our government to balloon out-of-control at the expense of our personal liberty; and we fail our own conscience, convincing ourselves that we can purchase compassion and prosperity with money we haven't earned. 

Our debt expansion may be the greatest threat to liberty we have ever faced - because we're comfortable with it. The moral compromise that begins with unwise debt can only lead to greater compromises down the road, and ultimately, the undoing of our way of life - the ruin of our nation.  I don't know if we've passed the point of no return already.  I do know that Americans have risen to meet great challenges before, and to that end I submit these thoughts for your consideration.

In posts-to-come, I'll propose a change of course, radical as usual for eRevolution - Constitutional to the core.  

All that aside, I'd like to propose a dramatic health care reform plan of my own -- an eRevolution-style reform that, while radical, might be just what the doctor ordered (or what he would order, if the government wasn't regulating his business).

A Little Background

We're used to thinking of the government chain of command running from top to bottom: the Federal government is where the real power is, and the States take care of the leftovers and the little stuff.  The Founders envisioned America differently: the States were sovereign government bodies (which derived their power from their own people), and these State governments, for mutual protection in trade, law and military matters, bound themselves together via the Constitution.  

The Constitution, then, served as the contract between the States - not to overrule them, but to link them together in the common defense of liberty.  Our Founding Fathers were so committed to this concept that they drafted the 10th Amendment to spell it out clearly: the powers not specifically granted to the Federal government in the Constitution were to be reserved for the State governments, or simply to the people themselves (private industry, charity, local governments, etc.).

With this arrangement, the day to day talk of the nation wouldn't be focused on Washington D.C., but rather on what was happening in the State capitols.  The real power then, was much closer to home.  And this worked to the advantage of the common man - he is far "closer" to the decision-makers at the State level than those at the Federal level.  

(Prime example: I recently met with a State representative from my own area of Ohio, to talk about things happening in Columbus.  We enjoyed lunch at a local Bob Evans.  Unless I was "somebody important," this would be far more difficult to arrange with my federal representatives.)  

The "closer" I am to the people making decisions as my representatives, the more influence I can have.  But the more "federal" things get, the less empowered I am as an individual citizen, and the less "voice" I really have.

So, the Founders vision of the nation involved the power being spread around to the States, not centralized in one all-powerful Washington entity.  The benefits to this arrangement are numerous; not the least of which is some healthy competition between States.  If one State enacts laws or starts programs that are unfavorable, people can move to another State.  But if the Feds do something you don't like, where can you go, realistically?  (So for me, if Ohio raised taxes too much, I might consider moving to Florida, or visa-versa.  That pressure to please the population should keep each state government from going off the deep end.)

You can read the Federalist papers for more on that, particularly #45 by James Madison.

The Constitutional Option

For health care, then, the Constitutional option would be to hand all medical programs over to the State governments and private industries or charities - precisely the opposite of the federal "public option" being discussed.  Here are some specifics:

1. Spin Medicare and other government health care initiatives off to the State governments, working out a transitional budget wherein States begin to collect Medicare taxes and write Medicare regulations.  Obviously, for years the Feds have been receiving Medicare income, and there will be a time of transition where the Federal government will need to proportionally direct money to the States and guarantee the fulfillment of promises made by federal Medicare thus far.  But within a few decades, I think the transition could be complete (and the benefits would be felt almost immediately).

Benefits: 

a) State governments know how to care for their people better than Washington bureaucrats - things that work in one part of the country may not work so well in others.  (A liberal code-word we might use here: localism.)

b) People will have more of a voice in decision-making, because they are "closer" to the decision-makers.  

c) Corruption and waste would be reduced because of the increased accountability at the State level.

d) There would be constant innovation and competition among States to provide better, more efficient Medicare/related safety net services.  States that succeed would then be able to share good ideas with other States, and plans that fail can be avoided by others.  This would likely result in better care at lower costs, and that difference would be felt throughout the system.  Examples: one State might try a "public option," while another tries private incentives and health savings accounts, another goes with the health insurance "mandate," one State may get completely out of the health-care business and contract with private companies to do the work, etc.  The best ideas win, the bad ideas lose, and overall health, prosperity, and customer choice are improved.

e) This brings our government in line with the 10th Amendment, restoring our right to a federal government limited by its Constitution.

2. Make a federal law that prohibits States from "exclusive" health insurance laws.  In other words, people should be allowed to purchase their private health insurance from any company located in any State, just like you can purchase cars, books, stocks, or oil changes from any business anywhere. 

Benefits: 

a) A whole new world of competition in the private sector, which will result in better customer service, lower costs, and better incentives.  More choices and equal opportunities for all.  

b) Pressure on State governments not to place too many regulations or taxes on insurance companies and care providers within their State (since that would risk pushing those businesses to more "friendly" states).

That's it!  Radical transformation 1790's style.  Give it some thought, and let me know what you think. What are the potential blessings of the Constitutional option, and what might be some downfalls?

Disclaimer: I don't claim to know all the in's and out's of what this could mean.  But as a student of the Constitution, I feel like we need to "reset" to our founding principles rather than continue on our current path.  

Could we get every American citizen to read and consider the Constitution in 2010?

As a nation we need to revisit what the Constitution says, what the role of our government is, and what our vision for the future should be.  The security and prosperity of our Republic depends upon such discussion.  In the coming months I'll be posting further ideas and details about how we can flood America with the Constitution in 2010.  Here is a to-do list for now:

1. Fellow bloggers - post a full text copy of the Constitution, Amendments, and the Declaration of Independence on your site.  If you glance at the sidebar of eRevolution here, you can see how I did it.  Also, if you're on board with the concept, you're welcome to grab the graphic above and start spreading it around the internet - use it to link to your copy of the Constitution or to the one here at eRevolution.

2. Facebook Users - Post links to the founding documents to your Facebook, Twitter and other social networking accounts.  Initiate discussions among your network friends about Constitutional principles and how they relate to current day policy debates.  Connect to our "Flood America" fan page. We need to get the discussion away from political parties and emotional appeals. Let's make national decisions based upon freedom's principles.

3.  Everybody - Do some real study of the Constitution for yourself - the people over at the National Center for Constitutional Studies have some great resources to start with - including pocket Constitutions, videos explaining our founding principles, posters you can hang up at work - lots of great stuff. Also, you need to read The 5000 Year Leap and discuss it with your kids, coworkers and friends.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, however - but I'm guessing that we can make quite an impact beginning with these simple steps.  Imagine - thousands of webpages sporting their very own U.S. Constitution - tens of thousands of thoughtful online and in-person discussions about the meaning of our founding principles.  It's a start - soon I'll pitch the rest of this idea - the part where the raindrops turn into a veritable flood.

Mark Wagar of Empire Blue Cross offers perspective on the health insurance debate and takes questions from skeptics. It's interesting hearing from someone who actually knows what he is talking about. 

A few points made in this audio (at least, by my interpretation):

>> Insurance prices are admittedly unsustainable - but that has to do with the actual medical costs, not the insurance companies.  Real reform has to address underlying costs, not just mandate lower prices (doing so would bankrupt hospitals, which wouldn't help anyone).

>> "Profit" is mandated by law for insurance companies.  Far from being "wasteful" and "unneeded," the margin of profit an insurance company makes is what guarantees continued coverage.  Systems without some "profit" will end up like Medicare - losing money and going bankrupt.  The profits made by insurance companies are what "insure" people that the company can continue to exist and will have funds available to cover their claims.

>> Competition is welcomed by insurers, but not competition that is stacked in the government's favor (as would be the case if the "public option" is added to the system).  This "public option" would likely have the benefit of being not paying taxes as private plans would, being able to fix prices and pass the real costs on to private plans, not being required to make a profit or maintain a cushion, and more.  Of course, this would tend to the detriment or even destruction of private insurers, and would ultimately do nothing to help control the actual cost of health care in America.

>> One solution that seems to be supported in this audio is mandating coverage for all Americans (sort of the way car insurance is mandated, I suppose) - as has been done in Massachusetts, and guaranteeing that every applicant will be accepted and offered a policy.  (Personal opinion: why not do this, then allow state governments to provide a safety net for those that cannot afford the policies they are offered? Then states would have some healthy competition with one another, and could experiment a bit and learn from the mistakes of others.)

The Problem:

- This essential service has grown expensive - both the equipment and labor costs of lawn care have skyrocketed in recent years.

- Most U.S.communities have lawn care standards much higher than anywhere else in the world, but this has also led to higher ongoing costs.  

- Some families have complained that richer neighbors have access to better lawn care, resulting in greener pastures on the other side of the fence.  Lower-income lawn-owners need equal access to fertilizers, pesticides, and other other treatments.

The Solution:

First, lawn care providers need to 

dramatically lower fees, and need to provide full access to unlimited lawn care, regardless of the yard's condition or size.  And while they're at it, they need to find a way to serve the millions of people who, as of now, take care of their own backyards or let their fields grow wild.

Second, a "public option" will be introduced for those families that cannot afford private lawn care.  The government will pay reduced rates to companies and mandate that they provide the highest quality lawn care possible, even if this makes their businesses unsustainable.  In the case of business failure, the government will step in with needed "oversight" and funding. (In response to public outcry about Constitutional details, officials have suggested an alternative to the public option: lawn care cooperatives in each region, where government officials would mandate specific lawn treatments at the local level, rather than nationwide.)

Third, only organic pesticides and fertilizers will be permitted under the new lawn care plan.  This is expected to raise costs nearly 40% on consumers, but "it is for their own good."  Someone in the government also thought it would cool if all lawn equipment could run on vegetable oil by the year 2014.  Consumers should expect a 625% increase in costs when that statute takes effect.

Fourth, some overgrown fields may overload the lawn care system, particularly those mown annually with larger and more expensive lawn equipment.  A Federal Lawn Board will be appointed by the President to oversee the equitable distribution of available care.  Owners of overgrown fields will be asked to meet with lawn care officials to discuss end of grass options, like parking lots or forests. 

Fifth, the government will reduce the number of allowable backyard obstacles, like trees, shrubs, or playground sets, to reduce the overall burden on the lawn care system.  Obstacles require special attention, like weedwacking or turning mowers around.  A permit process will be intiated for lawn-owners who wish to add obstacles to their lawn, and extra taxes will be levied based upon this and an number of other factors (like hills, stones, bumpy surfaces or protruding roots).

Finally, lawn care will become mandatory, and some in the government are pushing for a "single payer" reform, running all lawn care related transactions through the federal government.  After all, it seems immoral that greedy lawn care companies should profit when so many lawns are in disrepair across the nation.  This option, seen as extreme by most Americans, will probably be introduced in a second bill, perhaps in a few years.

>>>>>>>>

Apartment owners, who see no personal need for lawn care, will be required to pay into the new system as well, since they share in the collective benefit of "well-manicured communities."  Those who do not sign up for lawn care will face tax penalties.  

The President himself had high praise for the spin doctors' concession.  "These brave men and women stand in the gap between our powerful ideas and the American public.  Where would we be without them?  Where would I be?"

"We're actually thrilled by this development," a spin doctor union official noted in a press conference Friday morning.  "This agreement between administration officials and spin doctors not only guarantees savings for the President's program, but it also amounts to a ten-year extension on our contract with the government."

A fact verification study done by eRevolution analysts has uncovered that the touted savings does not actually equate to "major cuts" as headlines have suggested.  Rather, spin doctors have agreed to a "reduction in the rate of growth of salaried pay, not to include reimbursable expenses, cash payouts or bonus options, and provided that no other factors interfere."