This Op-Ed by Sen. Jon Kyl and Rep. Eric Cantor originally appeared in the Washington Times.

This holiday season, the Democrats are making a list and checking it twice: trillions in new spending, $500 billion in new taxes, $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and higher health insurance premiums.

Wait! Higher health insurance premiums?

When President Obama addressed Congress in September, he pledged that health care reform would “slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government.” But congressional Democrats must not have been listening: Their legislation actually increases Americans’ health insurance premiums.

The bill introduced by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid fails to meet the president’s test. Premiums for individuals purchasing their own health insurance will increase by as much as 13 percent, according to recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Employees of small and large businesses would continue to see unsustainable premium increases of 5 percent to 6 percent yearly despite the legislation.

A study using actual claims data by the consulting firm Oliver Wyman shows an even worse impact. Premiums would increase on average by 54 percent, or $3,300 per family. In our states, Arizona and Virginia, premiums would increase by a whopping 72 percent for individuals and families. Premiums for small businesses would increase by 20 percent.

Study after study (now including the just-released analysis by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) conclude that the Democrats’ plan would make it even harder for Americans to afford their current coverage. Only in Washington is this called “reform.”

Republicans have proposed step-by-step solutions that will reduce Americans’ health insurance premiums. The House Republican alternative, for example, would lower premiums for individuals, families and employers. Based upon the CBO’s calculations, we believe that premiums for families purchasing coverage on their own would be $3,000 less than the cheapest premium under the House-passed bill.

Here are just a few ways costs can be reduced. We should curb frivolous lawsuits through real medical liability reform. We should allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, so they can shop for affordable coverage that best suits their health care needs.

Instead of more Washington command and control, we should encourage states to design innovative strategies that improve the affordability of coverage and guarantee access to coverage for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. We should allow small business health plans, so small businesses can band together and strengthen their purchasing power, like large corporations, when purchasing insurance. And, we should make it easier for people to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and permit people to use their HSAs to pay premiums.

At every turn, the Democrats’ solution is more government, even a government-run insurance company and a requirement that all Americans purchase government-approved insurance. The Reid bill would control every aspect of how your health insurance works. The huge cuts in Medicare, massive new entitlements and increasing pressure to stop escalating costs would eventually require the rationing of care.

This would mark an unprecedented change in the relationship between the individual and the state. To use the words of the classical economist Adam Smith, this heavy-handed control puts governments in a position where “to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”

This is not the kind of health care reform Americans are wishing for this holiday season. They want health care reform to lower, not raise, health insurance premiums. The Republican plan would lower premiums. The Democrats’ plan would raise premiums. It is pretty clear which one Americans’ would prefer to find under their Christmas tree.

Sen. Jon Kyl is an Arizona Republican. Rep. Eric Cantor is a Virginia Republican.

Eric Cantor discusses the GOP jobs plan on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

This Op-Ed originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch

The Obama administration has elected to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court just a few blocks from New York City’s Ground Zero. The decision has left millions of Americans bewildered as to why we would not prosecute him in a military tribunal.

The administration portrays the move as a pain-free step forward for America’s image around the world. But treating terrorism as if it were a matter of domestic law enforcement is more accurately a step backward that only invites pain. Any marginal benefits in world popularity must be weighed against the risks to national security and legal complications that will arise by importing suspected foreign terrorists and affording them the same rights as U.S. citizens who commit crimes.

Most importantly, suspected terrorists will be able to force the government to make public all evidence used against them. In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial — handled in federal court — the government had to disclose its list of 200 suspected terrorist co-conspirators. The federal prosecutor who handled the case, Andrew McCarthy, says the list was delivered within days to Osama bin Laden, who gained a window into U.S. intelligence strategies and found out which terrorists were compromised.

In the years since 9/11, America has strived to find the right balance between keeping the American people safe and honoring our democratic ideals. When it comes to prosecuting suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield, Congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court have spent years wrangling to find the right approach.

What has emerged is an updated military tribunal system that adequately safeguards sensitive U.S. national security information and doesn’t tie the hands of the intelligence community and our military. And it’s not as if the administration flatly rejects this structure. On the very same day the president announced his plans for Mohammed, he also declared that we would try by military commission five terrorists who attacked the USS Cole in October 2000.

The message here is perverse. Think of what this must signal to foreign terrorists sworn to war against the United States: Commit terrorism against a U.S. military target in a faraway place, America rightfully treats you as an enemy combatant; go the extra mile and attack thousands of innocents on the U.S. mainland, and America entitles you to all the niceties that U.S. citizens receive.

This is dangerous for a host of reasons. Much of our evidence against suspected terrorists, secured on the battlefield or in the heat of war, may not be admissible in a civilian court setting. The precedent will add another layer of concern for our war fighters who will have to worry about additional rights for their foes on the battlefield.

In the short term, consider the counterproductive spectacle the Mohammed trial will devolve into. The man who hatched and plotted the worst terror attack on U.S. soil wins a coveted platform to air his grievances against America. With all the legitimate public outrage against him and his cohort, expect a highly politicized trial. Lawyers will showboat, courtrooms will overflow, and security concerns will abound. To top it all off, it will cost American taxpayers several million dollars. And for what purpose?

Republicans believe military commissions are the appropriate setting for trying Mohammed and all terrorists caught on the battlefield. We reject the notion that foreign terrorists are entitled to the same rights as American citizens. And we also flatly oppose the premise that civilian courts are necessarily a fairer way to conduct a trial against a suspected terrorist or enemy combatant. There is nothing to support that conclusion.

In reality, military tribunals have a better grasp of military intelligence and the facts surrounding the capture of suspected terrorists. They have the specialized knowledge to sort through and compare the cases to see where the evidence is strong and where it isn’t.

Civilian courts don’t need a deluge of cases sprung on them that require new top secret clearances for clerks and office personnel. It’s pointless for them to have to spend countless hours catching up to the understanding that military judges already have.

Just as administrative judges handle Social Security claims, so should military judges take up prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees.

Treating terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as if they were domestic criminals is not a noble undertaking that boosts our moral standing. It is a fool’s errand. One that — if we’re not careful — could wind up costing lives. Whether or not we like to admit it, we remain a nation at war with terrorists.

Be sure to take a look at this CNN profile of Rep. Eric Cantor.

Here is the interview with Brianna Keilar: