The SC Senate has placed S. 836 on special order. S. 836 allows SC to enter into a compact with other states to avoid Obamacare. Objectives of Health Care Compact:

• To organize the states to reassert sovereignty and challenge the assumption that Washington knows what is best on health care policy matters that affect SC citizens.

• To force a conversation on health care and break the health care monopoly in DC

• To provide a non-partisan alternative to the current system. The Health Care Compact pre-dates ACA and is 100% non-partisan

CONSTITUTION BASIS FOR HCC: Section 1, Article 10 of the Constitution explains interstate compacts and provides that Congress must approve these compacts

When HCC is approved by Congress, it will:

• Give states the authority and funding for all healthcare programs with the exceptions of Indian Affairs and Veteran Affairs
• Re-establish state sovereignty over health care (interstate compact trumps federal health care regulation)
• Not force any state to act. States have the ability to implement or not implement. A state may leave compact with 6 months notice.

HCC PROCESS

• Philosophical Step—Do you agree States should be partners in solving health care problems? No fiscal impact. Helps build a critical mass of states to force a conversation with Congress on health care.
• Congressional Approval—This will give states the final parameters of compact approval so they can make informed decisions on whether to proceed.
• Implementation—State legislature plans, designs, and implements healthcare programs at the state level

The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will take up two resolutions next week that each condemn and reject UN Agenda 21. These resolutions are, indeed, simply expressions of sentiment by the General Assembly and carry no weight in law. The issue, however, needs to be highlighted since it represents one of the most insidious forms of the approach of what many refer to as “one world government”.

Anyone who doubts the nature of this agenda need simply read the opening paragraph on the UN website for the program.
“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” I thought of highlighting the really important words in that sentence, but each one of them expresses the fact that the globalists simply want to invade every organization, elected and otherwise, everywhere in the world and dictate every move you make. They’re not shy about it.

Here are a few examples of the plans that the UN has in store for you. From Chapter 1: “The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries….” “Resources”, of course, means your money and the only way anything flows “to” somewhere is if it first comes “from” somewhere—that would be your wallet.

The Agenda, of course, makes the requisite nod to “global warming” which every day is more revealed as a hoax that makes even Bernie Madoff blush. The UN says in Chapter 9 that: “The basic and ultimate objective of this programme area is to reduce adverse effects on the atmosphere from the energy sector by promoting policies or programmes, as appropriate, to increase the contribution of environmentally sound and cost-effective energy systems, particularly new and renewable ones.” The definition of “new and renewable”, as stated in the footnote, is, in part, “solar thermal” and “solar photovoltaic”. When a government promotes (again, with your money) a programme to increase the contribution of new and renewable energy systems, then we get—wait for it—Solyndra.

Agenda 21 goes on for 22 mind-numbing chapters, and I haven’t read them all, but then again I need to keep down three meals a day. The point is that the UN wants your money to move its agenda. The current fear in America is that we have too many politicians, including President Obama, who seem eagerly inclined to accommodate them. A wise man once told me that, “It isn’t a problem until it’s a problem”. Well, it’s a problem.

South Carolina Poised to Join Growing Number of States Offering School Choice
Friedman Foundation applauds efforts of House and Senate leaders

INDIANAPOLIS — With the passage of H. 4894, South Carolina is poised to join a growing list of states that offer school choice for families. Already, 18 states and the District of Columbia give families the freedom to choose an effective education for their children, whether that education is provided by public or private schools, at home, or online.

The proposed legislation, which would establish a tax deduction for schooling expenses, a tax-credit scholarship program for low-income families, and a tax-credit scholarship program for students with special needs, recognizes the importance of giving parents the maximum number of opportunities for children to thrive in educational settings best suited to their needs.

“The Friedman Foundation applauds the historic step taken in the House,” Robert Enlow, President and CEO of the Friedman Foundation, said. “We would like to thank the many legislative leaders in the House who supported the rights of parents to choose schools that work best for their children, including House Speaker Bobby Harrell, Majority Leader Kenny Bingham, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brian White, House Ways and Means Subcommittee Chairman Rita Allison, and long-time school choice advocate Eric Bedingfield.”

The proposal now moves to debate in the Senate, where Senators have the opportunity to make South Carolina the 19th state to give parents the right to choose an educational environment that motivates and challenges their children.

“Leaders across the state are coming together to improve education by giving parents more options,” Enlow added. “We appreciate the leadership in the Senate of Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, chief sponsor Larry Grooms, and the sponsors on the Senate Finance Committee including Kevin Bryant, Mike Fair, Greg Ryberg, David Thomas, and Danny Verdin.”

As policymakers consider these important issues, it is vital to know the facts. According to recent polls and peer-reviewed research:

A sizeable majority of parents, particularly low- and middle-income parents, want more options for their children.
Studies show that children receiving scholarships achieve more (they perform marginally better on standardized tests) and attain more (they are more than 20 percent more likely to graduate).
20 out of 21 studies find that school choice helps traditional public schools improve. No empirical studies find school choice harms public schools.
State-sponsored evaluations in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Florida find that school choice programs save money and are a better use of taxpayer funds.
About the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice
The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, solely dedicated to advancing Milton and Rose Friedman’s vision of school choice for all children. First established as the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation in 1996, the Foundation continues to promote school choice as the most effective and equitable way to improve the quality of K-12 education in America. The Foundation is dedicated to research, education, and outreach on the vital issues and implications related to choice and competition in K-12 education.

###