The Call of God

New Blog!

2011-09-29T22:27:00.001-05:00

I am happy to announce the beginning of my new website and blog. You can find it and my first post "I promise you death" over at http://michaeldyates.wordpress.com. My goal is to establish a more professional and customize-able site that I can develop now that I'm well into my post-college life. I will leave this blog up for archival and reference and am quite happy for the training ground it has been for me.

May God bless you all as you follow me over at http://www.michaeldyates.com.

How to Save Money: Move

2011-07-30T19:38:00.004-05:00

One of the most powerful money-saving decisions we made was one of the most difficult. We decided to move. While we had motivations that weren't exclusively financial, doing some math really helped in our decision.

If you are planning a move soon, consider financial costs and savings as a big factor in your decision. Here are some things to consider.

1. Location compared to work, church, and other regular destinations. How many times do you drive there on average a month? Put these distances into a spreadsheet and calculate your savings. Look at the federal mileage reimbursement rate to help calculate how much you are saving by moving closer.

2. Monthly costs at your current location vs monthly costs at the new location. Consider rent/mortgage, utilities, property taxes, insurance, and available appliances (e.g. laundry hookups vs laundromat.

3. The costs of moving: rental truck or movers, deposit at new location, closing costs/selling costs, down payments, cleaning, application fees, installation services, and new furnishings and appliances.

In the quest to save money, consider that housing is probably your primary expense. Are you willing to make big decisions to help your financial situation?

Personally, when we moved we gave up 250 square feet. However, we are 12 miles closer to my job, and 12 miles closer to our church. By calculating the average number of round-trips we make to each destination monthly, that is a savings of $250 a month in transportation costs alone! That's $3000 a year. In addition by going with a smaller place, we saved $70 a month. That's $840 a year.

If I told you it was possible to save $3800 a year and spend more time with your family and less in the car, would you consider it?

How to Save Money: Internet and Cell Phones

2011-07-24T22:41:00.001-05:00

In our attempt to better live within our means, we had to make some cuts. Despite our willingness to own a pair of smartphones, ours are still of the "dumb" variety. We found that two cell phones with the smallest amount of minutes possible, but including unlimited nights and mobile-to-mobile were the best solution for us.

While we had a relatively affordable plan around $80/month, we found it advantageous to join our parents on a family plan. If you look into the details of any (contracted) cell phone plan, you find that you really start saving the big bucks when you hit lines 3 and up. So if you can get a group of financially trustworthy people together (for some people, family does not qualify), try to gather under one cellular roof and split the bill. It can be quite lucrative. We have gone from that $80/mo to around $40. For that we get unlimited calling to other phones with our carrier, unlimited text, and basic internet on one of the phones. (Note that I didn't mention carriers because with this concept it doesn't really matter.)

In related news, we've been able to go home-phone-free for a few years now. From my experience a very basic home phone plan is $25/mo. There are some pretty cool cordless phones out now that allow you to use a cordless phone on your cell phone plan. The base pairs with the Bluetooth on several cell phones. (AKA, when your cell phone rings, your home phone rings; no home phone plan necessary).

Finally, yet still related, we got our Internet through a Mobile Broadband carrier. This uses a cell phone network to bring internet to your computer. Usually you'll get the best speed and price if you get a mobile broadband device from your cell phone carrier if you're on a contract plan. Otherwise, there are several no-contract solutions. To my knowledge, the no-contract option with the best speeds is T-Mobile. Clear is contracted but their cancellation fee is so small that it's not a big deal. Of course, check coverage in your area before signing up for anything. Also, try to get a good estimate of how much data you'll need. (Great calculator here.) On Clear's Basic Home plan we're at $35/mo for about 1.5mbps speeds. When you consider that we don't need a home phone to get this service, it's a pretty good savings ($5-10/mo on the internet portion alone).

Altogether we're saving $40 on the cell phone, $25 on the home phone, and about $5 on internet. That's about $840/year.

How To Save Money: Netflix and Antenna

2011-07-13T11:00:00.000-05:00

Deficit reduction is the name of the game. I sometimes feel like my own life is a mirror of the national dialogue. I'd like to share with you in a series of posts how my family has been saving money every month. My hope is that you analyze your own situation and take as many of these suggestions to heart as you see fit.

One way we have been significantly saving money is by eliminating satellite and cable from our diet. We've had both Dish Network and Comcast in the last 4 years. Plans through Dish ran us about $35/month and Comcast was over $50 (and that was the introductory rate!). Though my wife and I both watch a fair amount of TV, she has the dominating market share. So, it was really up to her what she was willing to give up and live with.

We determined initially that by eliminating the TV service, using an antenna for locals, and getting at most 1 Redbox movie a day, we'd cut back to $30/mo at worst. When she quit her part time job, we subscribed to Netflix streaming and 1 DVD at-a-time for $10.99/mo so she'd have more choices. Haven't been back to Redbox since.

$50 a month to $11 a month is a $468 annual savings.

With the newly announced plan changes through Netflix (September 1), we'll probably drop streaming and go to 2 DVDs at-a-time for $12/mo.

Pros: Besides the savings, we have a movie selection similar to what Comcast offered on-demand, and we don't have to drive anywhere for dvd rentals.Wii

Cons: Requires an equipment investment. You need a streaming device for Netflix (gaming system, bluray, or Roku), Broadband internet service with wi-fi (router or my-fi card). The antenna will vary based on where you live, you'll need a digital converter box for any non-digital tv you want to use. You have to give up your favorite cable networks, (for us TNT and Comedy Central were painful to surrender).

What is the purpose of life?

2011-02-02T12:34:00.001-06:00

This question has been asked by every person that ever lived. We want to know why we are here and what we're supposed to do. There is a book in the Bible that was written to answer this question. It was probably written by King Solomon near the end of his life. Solomon was well known for being very wise. He looked at all the things he had done and tried to find meaning in them. Today, we will look at what he found and his advice to others.

In this book, Solomon calls himself the “Preacher” or “Teacher”. In Greek this is “Ecclesiastes,” the name English-speakers use for the book.

Ecclesiastes 1:2
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

Have you ever felt this way? Sometimes it seems like everything is meaningless. We want to look at the things we have done in our lives and think that they were worth something. We want to do good things that have value. We think that by working hard, we will add meaning to our lives. We think that living a long time will give our lives meaning. We think that getting more money or wealth will make our lives meaningful. The Preacher thought these things were true too. But he found later in life that it was not true.

The Preacher was saddened by the idea that both good people and evil people had to die. He also saw many examples of injustice. He wanted to find meaning in all of this.

Ecclesiastes 2:1
I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good.” But that also proved to be meaningless.

The Preacher determined that the purpose of life might be trying to be wealthy. He tried to have as much pleasure as he could. He collected gold. He drank a lot of wine to feel good. He built extra houses, pools, and gardens. Anything that looked good, he wanted.

At the end of this pursuit, he gave up. He called it “chasing after the wind”. He learns that pursuing wealth and pleasure is not the purpose of life.

Ecclesiastes 4:8
There was a man all alone;
he had neither son nor brother.
There was no end to his toil,
yet his eyes were not content with his wealth.
“For whom am I toiling,” he asked,
“and why am I depriving myself of enjoyment?”
This too is meaningless—
a miserable business!

The Preacher saw people working hard all around him. He thought that hard work might be the purpose of life. He tried working harder than normal and enjoying the benefits of work. But, as he saw people around him working, he realized something. No matter how hard someone works, they will still die. All that they have earned will be given to someone else. He saw that people are born with nothing and die with nothing.

The Preacher determined that hard work is wise and a good thing. However, hard work is not the purpose of life.

Ecclesiastes 6:6
"even if he lives a thousand years twice over but fails to enjoy his prosperity. Do not all go to the same place?"

If all of our money and wealth disappear when we die, then they cannot be the purpose of life. The Preacher thought that the purpose of life may be to live as long as possible. This way, a person can enjoy their wealth as long as possible. However, the Preacher saw that everyone dies in the end, so living a long life is not the purpose of life.

Ecclesiastes 6:7
Everyone’s toil is for their mouth,
yet their appetite is never satisfied.

The Preacher is still looking for answers. People are always eating. Maybe the purpose of life is to eat good food, and eat it a lot. But, the Preacher also realized that the reason people are always eating is because they are never full. They can never get enough food. Getting more food it not the purpose of life

Eccleasiastes 9:16
So I said, “Wisdom is better than strength.”

The Preacher begins to discuss the value of wisdom and knowledge. Wisdom lets a person enjoy life more. Wisdom also leads to a longer life. Wisdom makes a person stronger than physical strength can. Wisdom by itself is not the purpose of life, but wisdom is worth seeking. Wisdom will lead you to the purpose of life.

Ecclesiastes 12:1
Remember your Creator
in the days of your youth,
before the days of trouble come
and the years approach when you will say,
“I find no pleasure in them”

The first great wise teaching the Preacher gives is this one. Young people should remember and honor the Creator. It is important for young people to do this because they are still excited about life. It can be difficult for an older person to submit to the Creator, because they are sometimes disappointed in life. Everyone should draw close to God early in life. This is the first part of the purpose of life.

Life is all about the creator of life. The reason we exist is to bring glory to the One that made us. The Preacher realized that the reason for life is outside of life itself. The purpose for our existence is to come back to God. We were made by him and for him.

Ecclesiastes 12:13
Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.
For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

The Preacher has reached an important conclusion. Nothing in life has lasting meaning because it will all disappear. Therefore, the only thing that could have meaning is something that lasts after death. After we die, our deeds will be judged. God will reward us for the times we have obeyed him. The way to fear God is to obey the commands he has given.

It is important to remember that every action we perform is seen by God. Jesus teaches that “There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.” Since God will reward us, we must be constantly aware of our obedience.

Sometimes it seems like the wicked are being rewarded by the world. The Preacher encourages us not to worry.

Ecclesiastes 8:12-13
Although a wicked person who commits a hundred crimes may live a long time, I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him. Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them, and their days will not lengthen like a shadow.

What exactly are God's commands? Two of the most repeated commands in the Law that the author of Ecclesiastes would be familiar with were "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:5) and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18).

One way that we can show our obedience to God is by repenting when we fail. This requires admitting our faults and changing our behavior for the future. God's grace is great. He forgives wickedness for those that repent.

As the Preacher looked for purpose in life, he found many wrong answers. Purpose is not found in pleasure. There is no eternal benefit to having great wealth. Even a long life must end. True meaning comes from obeying the commands of God. This is the only thing that lasts after death.

Ephesians 6:8
“you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do”

Let us live lives of meaning. Let us strive for these rewards!

Jesus on Trustworthiness

2010-09-10T14:19:00.000-05:00

In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, he told the people around him to obey from within their hearts. It wasn’t good enough just to keep the “Big 10”, but they had to follow God from inside-out. When it came to trustworthiness, he said:

You have also heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not break your vows; you must carry out the vows you make to the LORD.’ But I say, do not make any vows! … Just say a simple, ‘Yes, I will,’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Anything beyond this is from the evil one.

In our culture, we are so comfortable with going back on our word that we have to use the phrase “I promise!” to get anyone to believe us! If our friend asks “Will you help me with my homework?” and we say, “Yes,” they might still ask us, “You promise?”

What happened to letting our “Yes” mean “Yes”? There is no need for a vow or a promise if we merely do what we said we were going to do in the first place.

Discussion Questions:
1. Describe what happened the last time someone asked you to “promise” you would do something. Did you do it?
2. What are the benefits of saying “No” to a request that is made of you? (avoiding being over-committed; having more time for important things)
3. Does this mean we should never use the words “I promise”? (If yes – only sparingly, the principle is that our word is reliable, no matter how we say it.)

Why I'm Registering as a Libertarian

2010-08-10T12:07:00.001-05:00

I've been on a path since 2007. It began with a steady education by Ron Paul on the issues of liberty and personal responsibility. I voted for him in the Republican Presidential Caucus in 2008, and voted for many Reform/Constituion Party and Libertarian Party candidates in November 2008.

But, the whole time, I was registered Republican.

I justified not changing parties because as a Republican, I could vote in their primaries and influence the party. This year that changed, however. There were 9ish Republican candidates running for Congress from the 3rd district of Kansas this year. There wasn't a lick of difference between them. Likewise, despite my attempt to find differences between Tiahrt and Moran, no significant issues stood out.

I've come to the point that I believe I will have more influence on my state and community my making the point of being a registered Libertarian. I lose nothing, as I will be able to influence the Libertarian party with an even louder voice than I would have had with the Republicans. Plus, I believe the Libertarians, more than any other party, line up with my views. So why Libertarian?

I'm Pro-Life
Those who have done any research on Libertarians might find this confusing. In fact one of their mottos is, "I'm pro-choice...on everything!" However, there are 2 factions on the abortion issue: those that believe that the mother should have the choice about what happens with her body and all it contains (pro-choice) and those that believe that government's only role is to defend the rights of it's citizens, including those not yet born (libertarian pro-life). I fall in the latter group.

Additionally, unlike many Republicans in Congress, I do not limit "life" to the unborn and the elderly. I believe the lives of our soldiers should be preserved at all costs, unless they are needed to defend from actual invasion. I believe our soldiers have fought valiantly and that their lives are worth protecting from the whims of presidents. I believe the lives of those in other countries are to be preserved and not harmed by our interventionist foreign policy. I believe that the lives ended as a result of the war on drugs should have been preserved. I believe that lives who have been starved out by the travesty of inflation should have been preserved. I am VERY pro-life.

I am fiscally conservative
I am a true, laizzez-faire, fiscal conservative. Republicans have attempted to support this position on-and-off throughout history. However, it is not fiscally conservative to continue the longest war in our nation's history (Afghanistan). It is not fiscally conservative to unfairly cut taxes for one group so that they are unfairly raised for others. It is not fiscally conservative to cut taxes then raise spending, (and defense spending is spending). Taking money from one group of people by force and giving it to others is morally unjustifiable. This is true whether one is taking from the rich and giving to the poor or taking from the future generations to give to the current generations.

I believe in local government
As stated in a blog post by the current Kansas Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate, the most local form of government is me governing myself. "For example, if I am facing difficulties in my life I believe I should first look to myself to find the solution. Failing to solve the problem myself, I look to my family, then my community of friends, then my town, my county, my state, and finally….and only as a last resort… to the federal government." It seems that both Republicans and Democrats see Washington as the place for the solution to all problems. Democrats supported cash for clunkers and Republicans initiated the first bailouts. If I want to save money, I will make better decisions in my own life. It is my responsibility first. It is not your responsibility to pay for my needs, unless you desire to do so of your own free will.

I see this clearly on the issue of education. It is primarily a student's job to educate himself, and since the student is a minor, it is his parents job to chose the nature and content of his education. If parents choose to join together to support an institution for education with their own resources, then this institution operates under their guidance and purpose. If they choose to donate extra funds to provide free or discounted education to others, then that is a truly wonderful institution.

These are not my only reasons, but they are the major forces in my decision. This does not mean I'll vote as a straight-ticket Libertarian. I plan to post my November ballot here within a month, and you may see many Republicans, Reform(anites? what is the appropriate adjective for the Reform party?), Libertarians and (horrors!) even a Democrat on there. I will vote for the person who most closely represents my views, as should you.

You must always say everything you believe all the time, otherwise someone will accuse you of believing something because you never said otherwise. --paraphrased from N.T. Wright

What's the Difference Between Tiahrt and Moran?

2010-07-26T18:27:00.000-05:00

As the primary on August 3 draws near, the question of how different Tiahrt and Moran really are continues to resound. I thought it would be good to give you some concrete numbers to deal with.

Thanks to OpenCongress.org I can say:

They vote with each other 93% of the time.
Moran votes with Pelosi 31% of the time. Tiahrt votes with Pelosi 26% of the time.
Moran and Tiahrt vote with Ron Paul 75% of the time.

On recently popular legislation, here are their differences:

Moran voted for and Tiahrt voted against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (expands State coverage of Childrens' Health Insurance).
Moran voted against and Tiahrt voted for the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (establishing rules regarding State spending on their university system).
Moran voted for and Tiahrt voted against the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 (increasing minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour).
Moran voted for and Tiahrt voted against the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009 (requires a tax increase or spending decrease for every spending increase).

According to Project Vote Smart:

Moran has an A rating from the National Rifle Association. Tiahrt has an A+.
They both have a "0" rating from Planned Parenthood. They both have a "100" from National Right to Life Committee.
Moran has a 84% rating from the National Taxpayers Union. Tiahrt has an 86%.
Moran has an 89% rating from Americans for Better Immigration (reducing overall immigration numbers). Tiahrt has a 97%.

77% of Moran's campaign contributions have come from individuals. 83% of Tiahrt's campaign contributions have come from individuals.

As you can see, the differences are small, but they're there.

Kansas Republican Primary: How I'm Voting August 3

2010-07-10T23:51:00.004-05:00

The Kansas Primary election is nearing, and I'm ready! Here are the candidates I will be voting for, with a brief summary of why. I am a registered Republican in western Olathe. I strongly recommend all Kansans view this list before August 3 and see who their potential candidates are.

U.S. Senate - Kansas
I'll vote for Todd Tiahrt over Jerry Moran, Tom Little, or Bob Londerholm. I have been unable to acquire any information about the latter. On the former two, despite their attack ads, there is very little difference in their voting records. Little has little to distinguish himself from the others. I went with Tiahrt because he went to my alma mater, is of my religious affiliation, and has the greater reputation for character. However, as I felt with many of the Republican options this year, this is the lesser of a few evils. I disagree with both Tiahrt and Moran on Immigration and the War on Everything.

U.S. House - 3rd Kansas District
I'll vote for Dan Gilyeat over Dave King, Garry Klotz, Patricia Lightner, Jerry Malone, Craig McPherson, John Rysavy, and Jean Ann Uvodich. Again, there is so little philosophical difference between the candidates, that it came down to character. Anyone familiar with Gilyeat's story cannot question his undying allegiance to his country, liberty, and moral standards. His desire to deal with the national debt and audit the Fed is also admirable.

Kansas Governor
Updated 7/20
I'll vote for Joan Heffington and Mark Holick over Sam Brownback and Jeff Colyer. After reviewing Heffington's many views, I basically support most of her positions. She is interested in untying our legal system, which is the kind of innovative reform more candidates should support. Brownback and Colyer are also men of character, and the primary issue in which I disagree with them, foreign policy, will be removed by them being in a state-level position. I am very bothered though by their non-fiscally conservative desire to increase federal funding for our state colleges.

Secretary of State of Kansas
This is one that bothers me. There's not much to run on here, except "I'll do a better job than the last guy." I am wavering between J.R. Claeys or Libby Ensley over Kris Kobach. Kobach's association with the Arizona immigration law (which mainly hurts legal immigrants) rules him out for me. I'm mainly wanting innovative ideas, and I haven't heard any from these three. Claeys has small business background, and Ensley has election management background, and both are useful. I'll probably side with Ensley's more relevant experience.

Attorney General of Kansas
I'll be supporting Ralph De Zago over Derek Schmidt for Attorney General. Schmidt is a legislator that has passed very tough sentencing laws. While I support the fair punishment of criminals, excessive sentences only clog up the prison system and do not necessarily reduce crime. De Zago seeks to fulfill his constitutionally limited role of supporting local judicial systems. He sees his job as supporting existing laws and law enforcement, no more.

State Treasurer of Kansas
Ron Estes is the only Republican running for Treasurer. He is all about promoting efficiency, which is a goal I can stand behind.

Commisioner of Insurance of Kansas
I'll be supporting David Powell over Sandy Praeger, mainly because of his position that government shouldn't be in the insurance business in the first place, and his active role in reforming insurance policy in Kansas.

Kansas House of Representatives - 43rd District (Gardner and W. Olathe)
Mike Keigerl is the only Republican running. He has my ardent support because he listens to his constituents and stands up against the growing government in Topeka.

What Kinds of Spirits are There?

2010-07-02T10:08:00.000-05:00

Angels and Demons, God and Satan, good men and bad men--it can all get pretty confusing. What kinds of spiritual beings actually exist? What are their powers? How can they actually affect me? The Bible presents clear answers to these questions, mostly in the stories it tells.

God
Firstly, God himself is a spiritual being, and there is no spiritual being like him. None have the power he has, none have his absolute goodness, and none have his ability to be everywhere and anywhere at once. He has all knowledge and the supreme power to reward and punish.

Christianity demonstrates how God is 3-in-1, tri-unity, or Trinity. He is described separately as being the Father (of the world, of Israel, and of Jesus himself). He is also the Son, Jesus, who came to earth to save it and is coming again. He is also the Holy Spirit, who comes out of the Father and comforts and convicts the world today. All three exist today and have always existed. Yet, God is fundamentally and absolutely one being.

Angels
God saw it fit to create spiritual beings to serve him in heaven. These are called angels. Like the military, the angels have rank and superiority over one another. The only angel mentioned as the "first" or "lead" angel (archangel) is named Michael. However, "angel" fundamentally means "messenger." They are created to worship God and communicate messages to humans.

It seems that at some point before Genesis 3, an angel named Lucifer declared that he was more powerful than God, and many other angels believed him. At that point, those angels were sent to earth to be out of God's presence. These "fallen angels" are commonly called "demons" and Lucifer is now referred to as Satan (meaning "accuser") or the Devil. Satan does not have God-like power, only angelic power. He can be anywhere, but not everwhere, and his ability to torment can be limited by God.

Humans
Genesis 2 tells in detail how God created humans. They are a mixture of dust from the earth and the spirit or "breath" of God. Humans are spiritual beings that temporarily reside in a body of dust. We have some of God's spiritual attributes, his goodness, ability to exert authority, and reason. Like some of the angels though, we have all chosen our own way over God's at some point. However, he sent his Son to rescue us from our way. Our belief in Jesus rescues us from the power of Satan and will one day bring us into the presence of God (heaven).

Why Are the Books of the Bible in That Order?

2010-06-22T15:35:00.000-05:00

Why are the books of the Protestant Bible in that order? Is there any sense behind it?

Well, yes. But not as much as you might think.

Firstly, it is worth remembering that different groups of Jews and Christians put their Old Testament books in different orders. The New Testament is pretty consistent across Christian traditions. No group claims that the order of Biblical books (called the “canonical” order) is divinely inspired of God. Additionally, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians include books that Protestants do not.

However, the Protestant Bible was arranged with some thought. The Old Testament is arranged chronologically (in the order the events happened or the books were written) within categories. There are 5 categories: Mosaic books, history, writings, major prophets, and minor prophets.

It begins the same in almost every tradition. The 5 books of Moses have been placed in the order—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy—since the beginning. Since these books end at the entrance of the Promised Land, it seemed logical to include the books about the conquering of the Promised Land next—Joshua and Judges. Ruth occurs during the period of the Judges, so it is next. Following the taking of the promised land, we have the last judge, Samuel, and the first kings. Thus, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings. Then the story of the southern kingdom is re-recorded after their return from exile in 1-2 Chronicles. Ezra and Nehemiah record the actual history of the return from exile. Esther occurs simultaneous with Ezra but in a different location, so it is next. At this point, the Old Testament history books come to a conclusion

Poetic writings come next with Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Job likely occurred during Genesis. The Psalms were mostly written by David, and the last three books are attributed to his son Solomon. Thus, these are arranged chronologically.

Finally, the longer prophetic books are followed by the shorter prophetic books. Isaiah warns Judah as does Jeremiah later. Jeremiah laments about the fall of Judah in Lamentations. Ezekiel and Daniel are written during the Babylonian Exile. The minor prophets begin by warning Israel, then Judah, then talking about the exile, and concluding with its return to Judah and the rebuilding of the Temple.

The New Testament is less chronological. Matthew starts by talking about the birth of Jesus and his connection to the Old Testament, thus it is placed as a connector between the two Testaments. Mark, Luke, and John are placed in the order they were likely written, though they speak about the same time period. Acts, though written by Luke, is placed after John to keep events in order.

Then the letters begin. Paul's letters come first, arranged basically longest to shortest from Romans to Philemon. Hebrews is of unknown authorship, but just in case it was by Paul, this letter is placed next. The order of the books of James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude makes no sense to me. Chronologically, topically, and categorically it makes way more sense to put 1-3 John next to Revelation and have Jude next to 2 Peter. Of course Revelation was the last New Testament book written and talks about the future.

So you see, it isn't entirely cut and dry. Of course there are chronological Bibles out there that make an attempt to straighten this all out. However, You do run into challenges like Job. Its events occurred either pre-flood or in the patriarchal time period (Genesis), but it probably wasn't written until the period of wisdom literature that includes Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

The order of the books isn't extremely significant. Just pick one and read it!

What to Tax

2010-06-07T08:30:00.032-05:00

Many Americans would agree--taxes suck. But is there a better way to tax than others? Recently popular appeals for the elimination of the income tax in the U.S. seem to have an answer, but is it really the best one?

I am currently endeavoring to read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, and he reminds us that taxes take from our productivity and give it to a fundamentally unproductive body: the government. In other words, no government agency produces wealth or actually adds value to any commodity. Taxes fundamentally hurt the economy.

So, assuming some government is necessary (even if it's 1% of what we have now), is there a better way to tax than others? Since taxes hurt the economy, the question is: Which part of the economy do we want to hurt the most?

An income tax, especially a "progressive" income tax, which taxes the richer at a higher percentage, discourages increasing one's personal income. If we seek a better overall quality of life, it would be best to reduce this tax

A consumption tax like the FairTax discourages personal spending. This might have the advantage of helping people reduce their personal debt load. It would also encourage personal savings if the Fed decides to raise interest rates above 0%. However, consumer spending keeps the economy moving, which is all-in-all a good thing.

An excise tax taxes certain products like cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, or marijuana (if it was legal). The advantage of this is that it can act as a "sin tax," discouraging certain behaviors. In the case of tobacco, it has the advantage of charging those who cost the health system significant amounts of money....significant amounts of money. The disadvantage is that it places a heavy burden on certain job-creating industries.

An estate tax takes some of the left over wealth that a person acquired. The supporting idea is that whoever they would have left that wealth to didn't actually earn it, so they don't deserve to keep all of it. However, this discourages people from producing more wealth than they will be able to consume in their lifetime.

Tariffs are fees charged to corporations in other countries for the privilege of selling their goods in the U.S. This presents the possible advantage of protecting American jobs. Supporters would say that a Japanese automobile of equal quality to an American automobile should cost more than the American automobile. This, however, limits people's free choice of products and assumes that workers physically located closer to us deserve jobs more than workers far away. Historically, it has lead to "trade wars" where other nations, in return, charge higher tariffs, making our products more difficult to sell abroad.

A VAT tax is like a consumption tax, however it applies not only at the retail level but at every wholesale level. In theory, when a farmer sold their grain, the buyer would pay a tax. Then the retail store would pay a tax when purchasing it from the person producing food from that grain. Then there would be a consumption tax when the person bought it at the store. This encourages more people to buy at the wholesale level and produce the finished product on their own. It has the slight advantage of spreading the pain.

Spreading the pain may seem like the best way. One reason the current income tax seems so bad is that it makes up 84% of the federal 2010 budget (including payroll taxes). What if it was only 42% and a consumption tax was the other 42%? Is ending the federal income tax really the best way to reform taxation in America? Are the other options that much better?

Kansas Elections: Governor

2010-06-03T13:56:00.007-05:00

The Governor's seat is wide open with Mrs. Sebelius now the HHS secretary, and the newly promoted Governor Parkinson not running for election.

I encourage candidates or supporters to correct anything I have mistakenly put or left out. I will consistently update this post and previous posts with current data as I find it.

Andrew Grey / Stacey Davis - Libertarian, stop runaway spending, pass the Kansas Education Liberty Act (allowing tax credits for contributions to Scholarship Granting Organizations), overhaul the hiring system of state employees, supports state-level FairTax, encourage local food economies, supports balanced budget, term limits

Ken Cannon / Dan Faubion- Reform, supports term limits, balanced budget, supports FairTax, eliminate estate tax, local control of education

Joan Heffington / Mark Holick - Republican, laws need clear popular, Biblical, and Constitutional support for passage, judicial reform, supports FairTax
Sam Brownback / Jeff Colyer - Republican, supporting local environmental and agricultural research, supports term limits, strict constitutionalist, pro-life, market-based health care reform, more federal support for state universities, local k-12 education control

Tom Holland / Kelly Kultala - Democrat, supports creating new jobs and training to fill existing ones (e.g. nursing), more renewable energy, fully fund public schools
Marty Mork - Democrat, pro-life, wants to bring a Disney theme park to Kansas, legalize and tax marijuana

(Roger Scott Carson and Heath Norris did not make the filing deadline.)

Kansas Elections: Senate

2010-05-20T07:50:00.007-05:00

Senator Sam Brownback is stepping down (or up, as he is running for Governor), so there is quite a battle ensuing for his Senate seat. Here are the candidates.

Michael Dann - Libertarian

Joe Bellis - Reform party, Constitutionalist, pro-life, conservative, national sovereignty, welfare reform, repeal 16th and 17th amendments, withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO

Todd Tiahrt - Republican, current congressman from KS-4, market-based healthcare reform, local control in education, end estate tax, strong national defense, pro-life, stronger border security and stricter immigration standards, reform NCLB, more local control rather than federal control
Jerry Moran - Republican, current congressman from KS-1, fiscal responsibility (opposed bailouts), stronger border security and stricter immigration, pro-FairTax, pro-life, reform NCLB
Tom Little - Republican, supports 2% federal consumption tax to replace state consumption taxes and federal income taxes, limit foreign aid, move taxation to the state level, two-term limits all around, ending current wars
Robert Londerholm - Republican, balance between private and government sectors

There is a big question for Republicans regarding the differences between Tiahrt and Moran. Fortunately, they have served together in Congress for some time, so we can see some differences in their voting record. I encourage you to check out the comparison at OpenCongress.org and decide for yourselves.

David Haley - Democrat, current Kansas State Senator, pro-choice, increase taxes and funding for state programs, increase minimum wage, restrict gun posession, increase welfare availability
Lisa Johnston - Democrat, better financial regulation, limited congressional spending, support new businesses, greater state and federal support for education, legislative transparency, 1st and 2nd amendment rights, limit foreign aid, tax incentives to "green" companies
Charles Schollenberger - Democrat, supports Agriculture reform, strengthen community colleges, develop wind power, stronger financial regulation of banks and corporations, tax credits for job creation, phased withdrawal from wars, supports the new healthcare reform law, supports amnesty-based immigration reform
Stanley Wiles - Democrat, supports federal job stimulus, actively seek peace between Israel and Palestine, support clean energy, reduce dependence on foreign oil
Robert Conroy - Democrat
Patrick Wiesner - Democrat

Kansas Elections: 3rd District House

2010-05-17T13:17:00.007-05:00

With election fever heating up, I wanted to give a synopsis of the candidates from my area. In the 3rd district of Kansas Congressional seat, Congressman Dennis Moore is not running for re-election this year. It was previously assumed that his seat would go to a Republican...until his wife entered the race. Her candidacy makes the possibilities endless. The Republican nominee from '08 dropped out a few weeks ago. Here are the current candidates with links to their campaign websites.

I encourage candidates or supporters to correct anything I have mistakenly put or left out.

Jasmin Talbert - Libertarian, personal liberty, free markets, constitutionalist, smaller government, increased government accountability and transparency.

Dan Gilyeat - Republican, Veteran, likes smaller government, stronger security, less taxes, pro-life, interested in FairTax
Dave King - Republican, wants to repeal bailouts, cut EPA and Dept of Ed, have legislators write the laws
Patricia Lightner - Republican, State Rep (former Whip), supports Balanced Budget Amendment, pro-life, traditional marriage, aggressive War on Terror, FairTax
Craig McPherson - Republican, emphasizes 2nd and 10th Amendments, balanced budget, strong national defence, reduced taxes
Kevin Yoder - Republican, State Rep, this year sponsored budget that eliminated shortfall by cutting spending with no tax increases, against deficit spending and tax increases, for job growth by tax cuts
John Rysavy - Republican, Constitutionalist, deal with National Debt, supports the new Arizona immigration law, pro-term limits, pro-FairTax
Jean Ann Uvodich - Republican, bothered by Heathcare reform and Cap and Trade's effects on small businesses, cutting spending, pro-life
Gary Klotz - Republican, wants to defund Obama's healthcare plan, strengthen borders, pro-life, reduce government spending
Jerry Malone - Republican

Go here for a good article on the GOP Candidates.

Tom Scherer - Democrat, smaller government, less taxes, veteran's rights, quick end to wars, anti-FairTax
Stephene Moore - Democrat, no public issues statements. Self-described non-partisan.

The Kansas Reform party (affiliated with the Constitution Party) will nominate their candidates on May 29.

God's Sovereignty Over Evil

2010-05-04T10:28:00.025-05:00

You're not gonna like this. I didn't either.

God controls evil.

I told you. It's not pretty. But it's true. A 100% good God controls evil. But that's the conclusion of the matter; what's the beginning?

Religions offer us four options for the relationship of the physical and the spiritual.

Pantheism - They are the same. All is God, God is all. Good and evil are contained within God. Hinduism and Buddhism fall into this category alongside most Eastern religions
Panentheism – The physical is within the spiritual. God is present everywhere within the physical, but there is some part of him that is outside of it. This is a popular compromise forming between Eastern and Western religions that has gained popularity in Emerging Christianity and Unitarian Universalism, etc.
Immanence/Transcendence – The physical and spiritual are distinct but overlapping. This allows God to be separate from Creation entirely but engaging creation simultaneously. This is the classical teaching of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Deism – The physical and spiritual are distinct. God created the world then got out of the way. Revelations of his nature are limited or nonexistent. No one can really know God. This became popular among Christians in the Enlightenment period.

So how does this relate to good and evil? Either we have the depressing notion that all evil is contained within God (Pantheism/Panentheism), or on the other extreme, evil is acting on it's own and God will never intervene (Deism). These three options leave no hope for evil ever changing or being affected by God himself. However, just because it is depressing, doesn't make it false.

So which worldview matches reality? As disappointing as it is that God doesn't stop evil all the time, does he seem to stop evil...sometimes? If so, then those three options are eliminated. Really, if God has stopped an evil occurrence just once, then his supremacy over evil is demonstrated (transcendence) and his involvement in the world is proven (immanence).

If God is supreme over evil, then he either has a purpose for it or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then that's no supremacy. Again, it seems very strange to say that God uses evil, but that is exactly what the Biblical record shows us.

God personally killed Egyptians to motivate Pharaoh (Exodus 11:24; 12:29). God permits Satan to physically afflict Job and take the lives of his servants and family (Job 1:12; 2:6). God via Satan (probably a Job-like situation) tempts David to take a census, then punishes him for it (2 Samuel 24:1,10; 2 Chronicles 21:1,7). God uses the Babylonians to punish the people of Judah, then uses the Persians to punish the Babylonians for being cruel to Judah.

God uses evil. Can that be good? I'm of the opinion that the answer is, yes. I will not, however, presume to know exactly why God used evil in any particular situation. The difficulty with answering such questions is that there are many possible reasons why bad things happen. However, from the limited human perspective, we never know exactly which reason God has on that occasion.

The good news is that an absolutely good God who is perfectly supreme over good and evil will only use them fairly and justly. As with Job, we are stuck with the responsibility of trusting God's judgment even when it seems to be the utmost injustice.

Of course, this argument borrows heavily from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and N.T. Wright's Simply Christian.

God's Sovereignty Over Ethics

2010-05-01T10:12:00.005-05:00

Is Right right because God said it was, or did God merely recognize what was right on its own? Could God arbitrarily change what is right or is He limited to what right already is?

Take a moment to untwist your brain and come back.

Ethics has been defined as many ways as there are people talking about it. What I am presenting is nothing new, merely a clearer way of understanding it. As with time, understanding God's relationship to ethics is mind-boggling. Is morality subject to the whims of God, or is God subject to the rigors of morality? Did God prove himself morally pure, or is He making the rules because he's the most powerful one in the room?

I think as a Christian the question comes down to "Are ethical principals eternal?" This means that ethical guidelines must have began before God, or they coexist with God, or else they were created by and therefore after God.

I do not believe, as with time, that morals were created simultaneous with the rest of creation, nor do they predate the Creator. That leaves me with the middle option.That is, ethics are simultaneous with God. Ethics result from God's very nature.

Dishonesty is unethical because God is truth (John 1:14; John 14:6,17; John 18:37). Adultery is unethical because God is committed (Genesis 17:4-9). Hatred (or worse, indifference) are immoral because God is love (1 John 4:7-8). Murder is immoral because God is the very source of life (Genesis 2:7). Stealing is unethical because it is lazy and God is a hard worker (Exodus 20:11). Stealing is also unethical because it is presumptuous to say that anything is ours in the first place, as it all belongs to God (Psalm 50:10,12). None of these moral guidelines are arbitrary. They simply fit who God is.

God is not subject to rules, because they are not really separate from him. The ethical guidelines he has given humanity are based on himself. It is only fitting that we obey them because we are made in his image.

God's Sovereignty Over Time

2010-04-28T10:26:00.001-05:00

How can God have always existed if time has a beginning? This and similar questions often grace my path as a teacher of young students. One paradigm has helped me answer them, and I want to share it with you.

It is mind boggling to think of God as always having existed. He has lived forever and will still live as long as we do. This teaching can become problematic as we deal in terms of creationism versus theories like the Big Bang. One argument against the latter theory is that it is impossible for an actually infinite number of things to exist; also the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is “winding down” from a point of higher usable energy. Is God subject to these laws?

In other words, how can one say God has always existed and that matter can't have always existed?

To answer this question, I have the help of two great theologians: C.S. Lewis and St. Augustine. Lewis argues in Mere Christianity that God's relationship to time is like the relationship between an author and her work.

“Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of moments following one another...He has all eternity in which to listen to the split second of prayer... Suppose I am writing a novel... Between writing the first half of that sentence and the second, I might sit down for three hours and think.” (pp. 167-168; HarperSanFrancisco, 2001 edition)

In my own words, God is not just on the entire timeline, he is outside the timeline. He created time itself. Therefore, to say God has always existed is an understatement. He invented both “existence” and the concept of “always.”

Augustine sheds more light on the issue in The City of God.

"...time does not exist without some movement and transition, while in eternity there is no change, who does not see that there could have been no time had not some creature been made, which by some motion could give birth to change...and thus, in these shorter or longer intervals of duration, time would begin? Since then, God, in whose eternity is no change at all, is the Creator and Ordainer of time, I do not see how He can be said to have created the world after spaces of time had elapsed, unless it be said that prior to the world there was some creature by whose movement time could pass. ... then assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time." (Book 11, The City of God)

In other words, if nothing changes, there is no passage of time. Therefore, God did not "wait" for time to pass before creating the world. He created time by the simple act of creating. Time and the world began at the same...time.

Time itself is subject to God. Therefore, issues like God existing within creation for ever are subject to this greater principle. God's immanence is explained by his transcendence.

Answering a Fool: Proverbs 26:4-5

2010-04-25T15:44:00.002-05:00

The Bible seems to have many contradictions. I am of the opinion that most can be sorted out by a better understanding of the text. Others are more challenging. While it would be enjoyable to confront all proposed biblical contradictions, it would be redundant as many have attempted to do it already. The Christian perspective on many of these issues can be found here and here.

I recently had one of these apparent contradictions brought to me by a student. The issue is how to appropriately handle a foolish person.

Proverbs 26:4-5 NASB
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes.

Proverbs 26:4-5 KJV
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Well then.Somebody is either arguing with himself or forgot what he just said, right?

On the spot, I see two possible ways to reconcile these obvious opposites with each other. Firstly, the author could be merely stating an apparent reality. In other words, "It seems that if you answer a fool, you become foolish, but if you don't, he thinks he's wise!" Frustrating indeed. While the Proverbs often do this, it is not the only possible reconciliation.

I hoped to find some help by looking up the phrase "according to/as his ...deserves" in the original Hebrew. Maybe they are different words for the two lines.

No dice. They were identical.

So the author used the exact same phrase twice. Don't answer a fool according to his folly, just like it deserves. Better yet, do it.

I found one other instance of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible that was of some help. At the end of Job, God is correcting Job's frenemies for their foolishness and says:

"Now therefore...offer up a burnt offering for yourselves, and My servant Job will pray for you For I will accept him so that I may not do with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has." (Job 42:8 NASB)

The phrase seems to indicate a relationship of authority giving punishment. This works, as the context of Proverbs 26:1-5 is all about putting a fool in his rightful place...downward.

Finally I found some help from early interpretive tradition: the Septuagint. This is the attempt of Jewish scholars to translate their writings from Hebrew into Greek completed in the 2nd century BC. They rendered the phrase "according to" in two different ways in the two verses. They used "pros" in verse 4 and "kata" in verse 5.

There is a slight nuance in meaning difference here. Pros seems to indicate going toward something else on the same level. I would answer pros my wife if she asked a question. Kata seems to refer to a downward approach as with one in authority. I would answer kata my son if he challenged me. The result is something like you see in the NASB translation above. Don't answer a fool toward or on the same level with his folly. Do put his foolishness in its rightful place.

Of course, the practical reality is that one is usually a poor judge of whether the other is a fool. It seems that the answer should only be given to correct a person that you are in intellectual authority over. Otherwise, it will look like the conversation of two fools.

Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. - Mark Twain?

Health Care Solutions Series

2010-04-01T13:33:00.000-05:00

I have just finished a series on American health care industry problems.

1. What's Wrong with Health Care?
2. Health Care Costs
3. Transparency
4. A Proposed Solution
5. The Health Care Problem
6. Problems to Solve
7. Congress' Solution
8. My Health Reform Ideas
9. Solving the Health Care Problem

Solving the Health Care Problem

2010-04-01T13:24:00.001-05:00

In previous entries, I have suggested that the government seems presently interested primarily with increasing the number of people who have health insurance. This is only a partial solution.

In fact it is a partial solution with difficulties. The underlying reason that the government promotes this solution is that it should lower the average cost of health care for the several who are not insured presently. This may be true. However, it does not provide incentives for more efficient health care delivery systems or for participants to make better decisions. It also means that insurers will be providing more expensive care to more people. (Not all bad, but true.) In theory, it will lead to a majority of people in the U.S. paying much higher insurance premiums, while only slowing the increase of health provider costs. (This is not denying the fact that the new coverage will be a great blessing to the roughly 30 million that it will cover 10 years from now, according to government estimates.)

Shouldn't we also be concerned with lowering the average cost of heath care for most Americans? What about actually improving our overall health? These can primarily be done by encouraging healthier decisions in the population and focusing on preventative measures. Offering less insurance coverage for diseases resulting primary from poor personal choices is one method that has been proposed to help in all of the above areas. (An example argument is that the treatment for someone who has drunk heavily all their life who develops cirrhosis of the liver should not be covered by any health insurance. Otherwise, everyone else paying premiums to that insurance company pays for this person's treatment. The aforementioned Medi-Share takes this option to keep their costs low.)

The other thing that hospitals and doctors offices need to take up is the responsibility to streamline record-keeping. Google Health agrees. It is designed for you to collect and organize your health information in one place and make it available to physicians at will. It is not very popular yet, but systems like this may become more utilized.

Finally, heath care providers need to accept that the best way to attract a greater quantity of increasingly responsible patients is to make their prices and services clear from the beginning. I should be able to easily find the relative cost for labor and delivery, certain x-rays, scans, etc. by checking with local hospitals. This will only happen if consumers (that's you!) make it known that the reason they are choosing their health care provider is because of their clear pricing. Until it's important to you, it won't be important to them.

Uncompromised Faith: Book Review

2010-03-29T13:39:00.010-05:00

Michael Craven's attempt in Uncompromised Faith is to deal with the larger issues in American culture and how they affect Christianity. It begins by addressing Modernity and Postmodernity, then confronting truth in the realm of sexuality.

I once heard it recommended that, because there are so many books to read, you only give a book 50 pages to get your attention. If it fails to do so by then, move on. (It was even suggested that if you're over 50, subtract your age from 100, and that's how many pages you should give it. For example, if you are 75, only give a book 25 pages to get your attention.)

With that said, I gave this book 100 pages, and it didn't quite cut it. Mainly, I feel that after reading Josh McDowell's Last Christian Generation this book has nothing new to add to the conversation. While McDowell's work at least proposed a new(ish) solution – process – this work seems to have nothing novel to propose. Love the sinner not the sin; truth is absolute; the battles of the 60s aren't over; etc.

Really, it's not a bad book if you haven't read anything on the issue. I just didn't get anything new from encountering it.

The Last Christian Generation: Book Review

2010-03-26T13:57:00.000-05:00

Josh McDowell turned off my attention at the beginning by making the dramatic claim that if something doesn't change, we may be facing the last truly Christian generation in America. (He posits this title in contrast to The Greatest Generation by Tom Brokaw). He sees the global shift away from America as a depressing thought, though I believe it is equally hopeful.

However, I'm glad I gave it a chance to the end, as he actually proposed a solution based on the rabbinical method. Christian education should not merely be knowledge of doctrinal statements. Rather it should be a process of spiritual development. He argued that Christian training should not consider itself successful unless it results in a changed student.

This has challenged me as a Christian teacher to make sure my curriculum involves a lot of students reflecting on their own development. Only if they are committed to spiritual change will it actually happen.

Another thing I gained from this book was that I need to read unChristian by David Kinnaman.

My Health Reform Ideas

2009-12-16T12:20:00.005-06:00

I believe we need to take an analytical approach to the problems we face. Now that we've established goals and seen solutions proposed by the Mises Institute, the President, and the House, let's look at where there are remaining gaps.

As an opponent of the increase in the size of government, I of course have many objections to current proposals. However, you can find those lists all over the place, so I would like to offer some suggestions solutions. Many of the solutions take an approach tied to the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In many of our nation's issues, States can serve as separate experiments on differing solutions. This allows your state to choose the model that it desires without it's hand being forced by Washington.

Most of the government solutions revolve around solving the first problem, paying for the healthcare of the most unfortunate and most unhealthy. They attempt to do this by providing insurance for these groups, and most states have a program that already does this to an extent (Medicaid, SCHIP, etc.) However, it is without a doubt not within the Federal government's constitutional authority to do so.

Therefore, I suggest that the Federal government eliminate all such programs, allowing individual states to take action where they feel necessary. Additionally, proponents of the current legislation are suggesting that the government force the fortunate healthy to give up some of their income to the unfortunate unhealthy. I suggest that all who are passionate about this cause voluntarily give up some of their income for this purpose. It is far better to encourage charity than to rob of wealth.

An additional solution for Christians who are interested in this kind of possibility is Medi-Share. It is not insurance, but it enables Christians to share their medical bills with other Christians. It's benefits have limits up to $1M per year and $5M per lifetime. This would certainly meet the needs of many unfortunate unhealthy.

Next time, I will address solutions to the other 5 suggested problems.

Congress' Solution

2009-12-11T08:56:00.002-06:00

After viewing the President's proposals, it is important to understand the differences between his goals and what current legislation actually contains. Congress has passed its own solutions to these healthcare problems.

To accomplish the first goal of paying the medical expenses of those with the most difficult conditions, they also want to prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage based on medical history. They would also prohibit these companies from even charging different rates based on gender or medical history. Congress is also establishing a consistent, nationwide standard that every company must meet with at least one of their plans. The current bill also expands availability of Medicaid.

To lower the cost of such a plan, Congress is requiring most employers to pay for their workers' coverage or pay an additional tax. Also, lower-income workers could receive a subsidy to help pay for their plan. The current proposal also requires most Americans to carry insurance, in hopes that more "healthy" people will balance with the "unhealthy."

To accomplish the goal of lowering overall health costs, they would make insurance companies subject to anti-trust laws, which would increase the amount of competition.

To pay for this plan, they will pass a tax increase on those who earn over $280k (singles) or $350k (couples). They would add an excise tax to medical equipment, and raise taxes on business that don't pay for their employees' coverage.

Next time I would like to review where the "holes" are in this proposal, and look into other possible solutions.