>My thesis is, as I have mentioned before, that every single
>nickel kept out of the hands of the government is a net
>gain for the country as a whole.

Noted. I think the government needs an income. And that figuring out how best to get it, and from who, is of critical importance. If the alternative minimum tax for business is a wise way to go about it, then I am for it. If not, then some other means must be found. Dialog about what this tax is, how it is applied, etc. is just a step towards evaluating whether it should be done away with or some other tax should be decreased. You don't seem willing to discuss it.

>The alternative minimum tax is a completely punitive tax,
>punishing taxpayers for taking advantage of tax
>deductions and loopholes that are largely the result of
>government social engineering in the first place.

You lost me completely, here. Loopholes in business tax law are entirely the result of business lobbying and campaign-time checkwriting. If you want to call that social engineering, ok, I guess.

>You will notice that when the tax revenues fall a bit
>short of spending, Democrats NEVER EVER call for spending
>reductions, only tax increases.

Not true. The priorities are always different, however. Democrats tend to cut defense. Repubs tend to cut social security.

>The citizens of the country apparently have infinite
>flexibility to get by with less. The government never does.

This is probably not a partisan issue except that both sides claim the other side is worse. DC is a porkfest.