RE: I never said government had no function. I said the wealthy do not get any more direct benefit from what government does than anyone else.

I disagree. The examples I gave include many that benefit the wealthy more than the average member of our society.

RE: BTW, you have just described some of the few legitimate functions of government. I could argue on libertarian grounds over the interstate highway system, and the Federal Reserve monetary system, but that would be nitpicking.

Glad to know you do see something beyond defense as valuable. I'll try to remember that but forgive me if I forget when your rhetoric reaches an anti-government crescendo. The two you take issue with I strongly disagree with. As someone who works in an industry that actually makes products on a routine basis, I can assure you that the trucking industry is both vital and operates on thin margins. As someone whoo has travelled by road across most of this country I can assure you that Interstates are far superior routes of transportation. I also think it should be obvous to anyone old enough to learn about economics in the 70's that the FED has done a fabulous job keeping the economy on a steady course since the early 80's.

RE: You do realize, of course, that all of these functions combined occupy about only a third of the total Federal budget?

As I said earlier Tom you don't start a program of fiscal responsibility by being irresponsible or ask the poor to make sacrifices after enriching the already wealthy.

RE "A third of the Federal Budget pays for Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, State and International Assistance Programs, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, and the Small Business Administration.

Theoretically, you could cut our taxes by two thirds and still pay for all the functions that you say create the environment that allows a free market to prosper. And then some. There's still a hell of a lot of fat in that list."

Cut the fat then. Pay off the debt. Then cut taxes with a bias towards the bottom so that all income groups benefit from a growing economy. While any bias in the latter is clearly subject to debate the 1st two are obvious fiscally responsible moves as is cutting taxes after the other two.

RE: "Everything else we pay for is "largesse" as you put it. Wealth redistribution, as others put it. Money pumped directly into someone else's pocket."

Still ignoring the overall picture of monetary flow I see. The wealthy's money is theirs forever no matter how they get it or from whom, but its gone once it's out of anyone else's hands. Sounds hyperbolic, but when you call taxes paid someone's money but ignore that the wealthy's money comes in large part from the work and payments lower income people contribute yet don't consider they deserve a say in it, you open yourself up to that kind of criticism.

It boils down to this Tom. I believe in a distribution of wealth to drive capitalism, but see no purpose in an ever growing income gap especially when most people see little real income growth. Perhaps you have some insight as to why this should be the case, but I see none. All I see is tax cuts for the wealthy followed by income gains only at the top. Trickle down is 100% fiction in pay and probably in job creation as well. I'm sure at least the data indicates that low interest rates are a more potent long term growth incentive for job creation than tax cuts for the wealthy. Cutting off unlimited welfare payments is an alternative explanation for the sea change in the 90s as well, but tax cuts are not based on previous history.

Perhaps it boils down to a they earned it so they deserve it mentality, but I ask what about the people who paid them? The "they earned it argument ignores the difference in economic power and control (albeit limited these days) over what is paid and does not address the issue of equality of opportunity. In a democratic society people have a say in what they think is a fair economic system and the ability to fight control by a privileged minority. Again I don't mean the wealthy are some parasitic group. but rather perceptions of excessive greed and abuse will generate a counter reaction.

Regards,
Mark