Yesterday I commented on the obvious corruption of ACORN, in light of the videos released which show ACORN staff advising undercover investigators on how to set up a brothel. I had thought that this so plainly demonstrated the nature of ACORN that anyone could see it, but I was wrong.

First, as reported by biggovernment.com, Charlie Gibson said, in response to being interviewed about it, “I don’t even know about it.” See the full story here: http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/15/charlie-gibson-on-acorn-scandal-i-dont-even-know-about-it/

Charlie, is ABC news asleep on this? How could any national journalist not have heard about it? The only answer I can think of is that they don’t want to know about it.

The second story comes to us from Reuters. Read the story here: http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1422457320090914

You can tell how Reuters stands on ACORN just by the title of the article: “U.S. Senate denies funds for poverty group”. Oh, is that what happened? Looking at the title, you wouldn’t think that there was any scandal, and you’d have to read towards the end of the article to even get a hint of the story:

“ACORN more recently has been embarrassed by conservative activists who secretly taped employees in several cities giving tax advice to a couple posing as a p(imp) and prostitute.” Well, I’d hope they’d be embarrassed. Also, what difference does it make if they were “conservative activists”? Clearly the author of the article is trying to impugn the motives of those who have exposed the corruption.

Then the article closes with this observation:

“The group has fired several of those taped while denouncing the actions as a smear campaign.” A smear campaign? That has to be the most outrageous thing I’ve read about this. Are those who run ACORN clueless? Those employees gave the advice on how to set up an illegal enterprise and hide it from the law. If there was any smearing involved, they smeared themselves. Back to my example involving H&R Block, does anyone out there think the same investigators would have been able to get an accountant from there on tape giving similar advice.

In watching the O’Reilly Factor tonight, he showed a clip from MSNBC where someone was saying that the employees were entrapped. Are you kidding me? How could they have been entrapped? They freely talked to the undercover investigators, and anyone can tell from the videos that they took the questions they were receiving seriously.

The corruption of ACORN is obvious. It’s on tape. The fact that some choose not to see it, like Reuters and MSNBC, speaks volumes about their character, or lack thereof.

If you’ve watched Fox News recently, I’m sure you’ve seen the undercover videos of a woman and a man posing as a prostitute and her procurer (townhall won't let me post the other p-four letter word), respectively. You can see the videos here: http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/14/acorn-video-prostitution-scandal-in-new-york-ny/

When I first saw the video, there was one theme of the videos that absolutely dumbfounded me. It’s the fact that the ACORN employee doesn’t bat an eye as she calmly tells them how to get a loan for their brothel, and how to set up their business, which will include prostitutes under the age of 16 who will be illegally brought into the country.

That tells me something which should be blatantly obvious to anyone. It tells me that this isn’t the first time ACORN, and probably this employee specifically, has done something like this. If not for a brothel specifically, then they’ve given advice for some other illegal enterprise, and have done so often enough that it’s a matter of routine. Everyone should stop and think about this. I can imagine myself being an accountant for H & R Block, or any other accountant. If I had two people come into my office asking for advise on setting up a brothel for tax purposes, the first thing I’d assume is that I was on Candid Camera, and I was being recorded somewhere. Either that, or that the whole thing was some sort of fraternity prank, and probably being recorded. No matter what, there’s no way an ethical corporation will give legitimate advice on a subject like that.

What’s even more upsetting is that an obviously corrupt organization receives tax-payer money. To their credit, as reported on the site biggovernment.com, the Senate voted 83-7 to de-fund ACORN. You can see the full story here: http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/14/breaking-senate-votes-to-defund-acorn/

I don’t know what’s more outrageous, ACORN’s obvious corruption, or the fact that 7 Senators voted against de-funding them after this story came to light. What are they thinking?

Once again I’m taking a brief respite from political blogging to discuss college basketball by taking a look at Xavier’s upcoming trip to Puerto Rico for the Puerto Rico Tip-Off.

So far, in Xavier’s first two games, they’ve shown promise, but have also shown some room for improvement. Freshman center Kenny Frease is looking to be as good as advertised. He is a solid defender near the basket, and is a force on offense. Sophomore Dante Jackson looks like he picked up some defensive pointers by watching Stanley Burrell last year. In addition to playing tight, aggressive defense, he is running a solid offense and is looking to be a strong 3 point threat. Seniors B.J. Raymond and C.J. Anderson, along with junior Derrick Brown, are playing just as expected. Among the other newcomers, Jamel McClean has displayed superb athletic ability, and almost looks like a Derrick Brown clone. Brad Redford is a shooting prodigy, and Terrell Holloway looks like he will develop into a top-flight point guard.

So far their weaknesses are too many unforced turnovers and poor free throw shooting. The unforced turnovers appear to be a problem of team chemistry more than anything else, because there are a lot of thrown away balls, as though offense just isn’t quite in sync. I think that will develop more with time together. I’m not sure what can be done about free throw shooting, other than to work on it in the gym during practice.

In the upcoming Puerto Rico Tip-Off tournament, Xavier’s first game is against Missouri. They will be facing a more challenging opponent than in either of their first two games. Missouri is lead by seniors Leo Lyons and DeMarre Carroll, both of whom will present challenges to the Xavier interior defense. Senior guard Matt Lawrence also brings experience to their guard play, and presents a solid 3 point threat that will challenge the lesser experienced Xavier point guards.

In this first round matchup, Xavier will likely be a slight favorite, but to win they will need to cut down on their unforced turnovers and continue to play the solid defense they have displayed in their first two games. Xavier also struggled against any kind of full court press, even in their one exhibition game, and Missouri likes to play that kind of defense. A potential matchup against Memphis is looming later on in this tournament, but they can ill-afford to look past any team they might face along the way, let alone Missouri tomorrow.

In Thomas Sowell’s column of November 5 - http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/11/05/affirmative_action_and_gay_marriage - Dr. Sowell mentions the length of time that marriage has existed for a long time, and that the rules and laws have evolved over that time based on that union being between one man and one woman:

“Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman. Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.”

One of the circumstances is the potential to produce children. In my previous post, Ken The Playful Walrus made a comment, and posted a link to one of his blog entries: http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/23/neutering_marriage_devalues_and_discourages_marriage.thtml.  Ken discusses here the connection of marriage to children, and I agree that the connection is strong, and I also agree that this connection has the potential to be undone by allowing same sex marriage. In addition to the points Ken makes, there is one other point that I haven’t heard or read mentioned, but it’s a point that has to be considered.

In many cases, there are prohibitions on who can marry. A brother cannot marry his sister, for example. A reason for this is the concern about recessive genetic disorders being passed to children and becoming active. If a brother and sister were to marry and produce children, there is the increased risk of genetic disorders being passed to the children.

For same sex couples, this is not a concern, because offspring cannot be produced. So this raises the question of, if same sex marriages are made legal, will a brother be allowed to marry his brother? If not, what will be cited as the rationale? If they will be allowed to marry, then will the prohibition on brother and sister marrying each other be allowed to stand? After all, if two brothers can marry each other, I can see the argument being made that a brother and sister should also be allowed to marry.

Admittedly this probably isn’t a huge concern, because I think the taboo on incest is so ingrained in American society that I can’t imagine siblings, whether same or opposite sex will ever want to marry in large numbers.

In my next entry, I’ll discuss the potential ramifications on the freedom of religion aspect.

Tonight I was watching “Hannity & Colmes” on Fox News, and, during a panel which included Juan Williams, the comment was made that the economic crisis was caused by a “lack of regulation” that took place under the Bush administration. Juan Williams said this just as they were going to commercial. When I heard this, I wondered what, if any, regulations were taken off the books or ignored by the Bush administration.

Try as I might, I’m having a real hard time thinking of one example of a regulation that was taken off the books under the Bush presidency. I also can think of no regulatory body that was shut down under President Bush. In fact, I can think of one big example where regulations were increased.

The quintessential example of increased regulation under the Bush administration is Sarbanes/Oxley, referred to, somewhat derisively, as SOX, for those who have worked for any publicly traded company since its passage. Also, anyone who has worked for a publicly traded company, as I have, during this time can attest to the fact that it is quite intrusive.  That’s not deregulation, that’s increased regulation.

Again, I can’t think of any example of lack of regulations, or deregulation under President Bush. In fact, the Bush administration pushed for increased oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he was rebuffed. If anyone can site a specific example of deregulation under this administration, please do so.

In the aftermath of the 2008 elections, specifically with the passage of amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman in California, Arizona, and Florida, there have been a number of columns written on this issue.  I have some observations on the issue of gay marriage, and I plan to have at least two parts to my comments.  If I get too windy, I reserve the right to go to three or more parts.

First, I want to look at the politics of gay marriage.  In his column of November 10, Rod Dreher says here http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1108/dreher.php3:  “Similarly, though it's tough for social conservatives like me to admit it, we've lost the gay marriage battle, especially among the young.”  When I first read this, two thoughts came to mind.  How can anyone say that the gay marriage battle is lost, when every time, in every state, when amendments have been on the ballot defining marriage as one man and one woman, they have passed?  If citizens are voting this way, it looks to me that this is a battle that is anything but lost.

My other thought concerns the politics of this issue.  This issue is looked at as a conservative issue and a Republican issue.  However, looking specifically at California, that state went for Obama by a healthy margin, 61% to 37%.  California proposition 8 passed roughly 52.2% to 47.8%.  Just looking at the mathematics of those numbers, clearly many voters who voted for Obama had to have voted for proposition 8.  So considering the numbers, how is this issue solely a conservative/Republican issue?

Four years ago, here in Ohio, we had a similar amendment on the ballot, one that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.  It passed by a larger margin than Bush carried Ohio, so obviously the amendment had the support of some Kerry voters.  I personally know some Bush voters who voted against the amendment.  One friend put it like this:  “Let them (gays) suffer the same misery and torment I did in my two marriages”.

Considering this, why does the gay marriage issue get defined as a conservative vs. liberal issue, or a Republican vs. Democrat issue?  Clearly, defining marriage as one man and one woman enjoys bipartisan support, and also bipartisan opposition.

In my next part, I’ll dig into the issue more, specifically looking at Thomas Sowell’s column from November 5.

But did President Bush really govern from the hard right. Let’s look at some domestic policies:

1)      Medicare prescription drug program. Sure, obviously a right-wing position, increased spending on Medicare. Does that mean cutting Medicare is governing from the center?

2)      Guest worker program for immigrants. Yeah, the extreme, far right-wing always supports that.

3)      Amnesty for illegals. I never realized the hard right supported this, too. I supposed “throw them all out” would be governing from the center.

4)      No child left behind. This gave us increased federal intervention in grade school education. This put him in opposition to Republicans who wanted to abolish the Department of Education. Which one is the far right-wing position?

The fact of the matter is that President Bush governed from the center for most of his domestic agenda, yet so many on the left think of him as the next Hitler.

Is there a lesson to be learned here? Perhaps the best one is that once you let your opponent define who you are, and don’t respond to it, you run the risk of having that definition of you stick. President Bush wasn’t one to be a poll watcher, and many times did what he thought was right regardless of what people thought of him. That is to be admired, but some attention needed to be paid to his image, because his enemies were left to define who he was, without refutation.

I’m curious as to how long everyone had to wait in line to vote this morning. I arrived at my polling place around 7:15 this morning, and waited until almost 8:45 to get my ballot. At my particular place, there were 4 precincts. There were no lines at the other 3, so I think this is more the result of the precinct lines being drawn prior to a couple huge subdivisions being built up over the previous 5 years or so.

Does anyone else have any similar story about their wait to vote?

To my fellow McCain/Palin supporters, do not be discouraged by the polls. Not only are they very close, but, even though Obama leads in most, his lead is small enough that it will come down to turnout. As an example, I will discuss one poll in particular, and my points can apply to all polls.

In the Rasmussen poll (seen here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) Rasmussen mentions that he uses party affiliation weighting for his poll. His specific weighting is 39.9% Democratic, 33.4% Republican, and 26.7% unaffiliated. What that means is that, on election day, Scott Rasmussen is making the judgment that, of those who vote later today, 39.9% will be Democrats, 33.4% Republicans, and the rest unaffiliated. It follows that, if you were to switch the party affiliation weighting, you’d have a different polling result. Therefore, it also follows that, if the party affiliation weighting is different for those who actually vote, the result will not be in line with the published polls.

So, in closing, this election will come down to turnout, and if the McCain/Palin team can do a better job in their turnout efforts, they can win.

In this comment to one of my previous posts: http://townhall.com/youropinion/comments.aspx?g=1aa8ea5a-6f00-43b1-afee-af9f5ee98ed7, the poster criticizes Republicans for wanting to limit government, and encourages us to fight for better government instead. Then the poster goes on to bash Republicans for being in everyone’s personal business, involved in “what we teach our children, who we marry, when we have children, how we have children, who we worship, when we worship. what we teach our children, who we marry, when we have children, how we have children, who we worship, when we worship.”

Well, that’s quite a litany, and I have some misconceptions about Republicans to dispel. So let’s take them one at a time:

1)      “What we teach our children.”

First of all, the poster says that we need funding for schools, specifically government run schools. If the government is going to run the schools, then shouldn’t they have a say in what is taught in them? Do we just give them a blank check? Or do we have standards? If you don’t want the government sticking their nose into the classroom, then maybe you should advocate the closing down of government run and financed schools. That way you can take the savings in tax dollars and go to any school you’d like. But somehow I doubt you’d go for that.

2)      “Who we marry”

I know of no Republican who wants to tell anyone who they can and can’t marry, other that limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Any man can marry any woman, and no Republican would stand in the way. I feel like I’m stating the obvious here, but it appears it’s necessary.

3)      “When we have children, how we have children”

This one confuses me. I know of no politician who’s ever addressed this issue, let alone any Republican.

4)      “Who we worship, when we worship”

Ditto #3, especially the when. What are you talking about?

The poster then goes on to say that McCain and Palin will continue to bring the government into our bedrooms. That is a classic straw man argument, unless there’s a secret government plan to place cameras in everyone’s bedroom, and I’m just unaware of it. Besides, if you don’t want the government in our bedrooms, aren’t you advocating limiting government? I thought you were saying limits on government are bad.

The fact of the matter is that both sides, Republican and Democrat, want limits on government, they just disagree on where those limits should be. In your comment, you praise Social Security as a good government program. But I could look at it as the government getting involved in how we save for retirement, and that’s something I oppose. I don’t think that’s a valid use of government power, but you seem to disagree.

In closing, you want to limit the government in some areas, while you like the government being involved in some aspects of our lives. We just disagree on where those limits should be.

On the website www.republicansforobama.org, a case is made that Senator Obama will unite the country, which will result in a number of major issues being addressed. I will address those issues one at a time and ask specifically how an Obama administration will solve these problems.

1)      The National Debt.

Everyone agrees that it’s a problem, but there is a lack of political will to do anything about it. Furthermore, how will this get better under an Obama administration, when he is proposing additional new spending programs? Are there spending programs that he’s going to cut? You can’t call tax increases spending reductions, so don’t give me that one.

2)      Trade Deficit

Even if we accept this as a problem, what specifically has Senator Obama proposed that will reduce this? Does he support higher import tariffs? All that does is raise the cost of goods, which will harm the very middle class he purports to help.

3)      Energy Independence

One way to help with this is to drill in ANWR and expand drilling off-shore, both proposals Senator Obama is against. You mention increased support for nuclear power from environmentalists, but Senator Obama is against that, too. Iowa corn? Is that really feasible? It currently takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than that ethanol provides. Ethanol derived from sugar, that’s another story, but high import tariffs on sugar prevent us from doing that. Maybe Senator Obama will reduce or eliminate those tariffs, but that would run afoul of the plans for the trade deficit. Will you still support him then?

4)      Global Warming

Historically the earth has been warmer than it is now and colder than it is now. If global warming is a natural occurrence, what can we do to stop nature? Scientists by no means agree that it is mad made, nor is there agreement that it’s going to be a catastrophe. Bjorn Lomborg has studied this issue in-depth, and, while he does think that human activity is contributing to it, there is simply not enough data to prove that this is the case. Based on that, is it prudent to spend a lot of tax payer money to solve something that may not be a problem? Won’t that run afoul of the national debt?

5)      Social Security

You state that “We need a reliable, sustainable retirement plan that combines mandatory retirement savings with flexibility, choice, and security”. Has Senator Obama proposed any plan for Social Security that has any of those qualities, other than the mandatory retirement savings? (As an aside, I find it odd for anyone who calls himself “Pro-choice” to be in favor of any mandatory retirement savings program. Shouldn’t I have the right to choose my own retirement plan? Or even choose not to save for retirement? But that’s an issue for another day.) You also state that Social Security and Medicare benefits must be quickly trimmed, but is Senator Obama proposing that? I don’t think so. He bashed John McCain for wanting to cut Medicare.

6)      Healthcare Reform.

You state that businesses are being crippled by rising costs, but Senator Obama wants to further entrench employer provided health coverage. Is that really the way to achieve your goals? The best way to do that, it seems to me, is to end the bias that the tax code has in favor of employer provided health insurance, which is a relic of World War II. John McCain’s proposal for this, a $2500/$5000 (individuals/families) tax credit for the purchase of health coverage, while taxing employer provided health coverage, will do this. In order to bring down health care costs, the person who receives the care must bear some of the costs. (High-deductible healthcare plans have a lot of potential there, an innovation of the Bush administration, which is one of the best things he’s done.)

Also, on health coverage, to truly reform the system, it has to become portable. Too many people are tied to jobs they hate because of health insurance. Strengthening employer provided health insurance will do nothing to get us closer to portability, and will only move us further away from that.

7)      Tax reform

I strongly agree that our tax code is inefficient, but what has Senator Obama proposed that will make it more efficient? You get more tax credits, but is that more efficient? Also, Senator Obama criticizes John McCain for wanting to lower the corporate tax rate, when that is one of the things that stands in the way of businesses starting and locating here, and also businesses expanding

8)      Immigration Reform

While this is important, has Senator Obama proposed anything specific on this?

9)      Foreign Policy

Our foreign policy must be based on strength, not weakness. For example, the President of Iran has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. How does meeting with someone like this, as Senator Obama says he would, without preconditions, show anything but weakness? How can you negotiate with someone like that? Do you say something like “Gee, how about only wiping out half of Israel”?

So considering all this, what does Senator Obama propose that will solve these important issues? Why should Republicans, who would agree that these are important issues, vote for Senator Obama? What specifically about his plan entices those Republicans who support him to do so?

Even though townhall.com is largely a political website, I think it’s healthy to occasionally discuss non-political topics, which I will do from time to time. I’ll start with a topic that’s near and dear to my heart, sports.

Ok, so if you’ve read my bio, you know that I live in Cincinnati, so you’re probably wondering what I’m going to say about sports, considering the state of the two major league franchises in our city. The Reds completed a lackluster season, but their pitching does look promising. And the Bengals? At 0-6, the less said about them, the better.

Now you are probably asking yourself, “What is he going to talk about after eliminating his two obvious options?” The answer to that is simple. I’m going to do a college basketball preview, specifically about my alma mater, the Xavier University men’s basketball team. Of course, your next question is, “Isn’t October too early to talk about college basketball when the NFL is going strong? Oh wait, never mind, I see you mentioned the Bengals. Carry on.”

Xavier is coming off their best season ever, having finished the 2007-08 season with a 30-7 record, setting a school record for wins and also reaching the elite 8 for just the second time in school history, equaling their furthest run in the NCAA tournament. They face the difficult challenge of replacing graduating seniors Stanley Burrell, Drew Lavender and Josh Duncan. However, with their incoming recruits, this year looks to be more a matter of reloading than rebuilding.

Key returning players:

Derrick Brown - junior forward. Throughout his career at Xavier, Derrick Brown has been a flashing, high-flying player. He routinely thrills Xavier fans with his impressive slam dunks. In addition to that, he is a solid rebounder, and strong on defense. Brown’s outside shooting was suspect at times, but he has worked on it during the off-season, and hopes to have that hard work payoff once the season starts.

C. J. Anderson – senior forward. Anderson transferred from Manhattan College after two seasons there. Last season was his first in a Musketeer uniform. His greatest strength on offense was when he played within 10-12 feet of the basket. He was very good at slashing to the basket for easy points. Xavier will need Anderson to do that again this year, and he will also need to take more of a leadership role with the departure of Burrell, Lavender and Duncan.

B. J. Raymond – senior guard/forward. For most of his career at Xavier, Raymond has come off the bench in games, but this year he looks to start. Even though he came off the bench last year, he was a very valuable player, most notably in the Sweet 16 game against West Virginia, where he hit 2 3-pointers in overtime to help propel the Musketeers to victory and their Elite 8 berth. Xavier will be able to count on him to be a solid threat from 3 point range.

Xavier has some strong newcomers, notably 7-0 center Kenny Frease, who comes very highly touted from Massillon, Ohio. He’s certainly one of the tallest players I ever remember at Xavier, and if he is as good as advertised, he will give them a very strong post presence.

Another strong newcomer is guard Terrell Holloway, who was originally set to go to Indiana until the scandal that resulted in the departure of Kelvin Sampson came to light. Look for Holloway to have an immediate impact on Xavier, and compete for playing time, possibly at point guard.

One question mark is the status of transfer Jordan Crawford. Normally transfers must sit out for one season, but because he transferred from Indiana, Xavier is asking for immediate eligibility for Crawford, because of the circumstances of his leaving Indiana. I would say it’s highly unlikely he will be granted a waiver, but you never can tell with the NCAA.

In coming posts, I’ll discuss the Xavier schedule, and give an outlook on how they look to do this season.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted an entry, which makes me long overdue and way behind on discussing my one and only comment to date. So I’d better get started.

On the question of taxes, it was asked how will the government get the money to pay for services, and lists examples such as roads, schools, social security, etc.? I could debate whether or not this is a straw man argument, but I’ll leave that aside and address those issues.

On the question of roads, those are probably handled differently depending on the municipality. Where I live, it’s a property tax levy that comes up for renewal from time to time, and is voted on by the people of my township. The federal personal income tax does not play a role in it, so even if the federal income tax was eliminated, we’d still be paying for our roads here. You might be thinking of the federal highway system, but that’s funded through a gasoline tax. Again, the income tax has no bearing on that.

Regarding the assertion that state, local and federal government has no money to fix roads and bridges, I’d say it’s not a lack of money, but a lack of interest in spending the money where it’s needed. Politicians are much more likely to spend money on something like a bike path, because that gets him votes, than he is to spend it on replacing a bridge, even though it obviously needs it. For example, the Brent Spence Bridge (I-75) across the Ohio River is called “functionally obsolete”. Everyone agrees it needs to be replaced, but there has been very little, if any, movement on it. It can’t be for a lack of funds. The politicians are simply choosing to spend it elsewhere.

The same thing goes regarding funding for schools. We have a local property tax levy for grade school and high school public schools, and it is voted on by the people. Politics has nothing to do with it. For the college level, there are programs at the federal level, but I would question whether they do more harm than good. (That’s a topic for a later post.)

For Social Security, that is funded by a payroll tax, and no Republican politician that I know of has called for that tax to be abolished, so there’s one program that will have its funding. There have been discussions about privatizing it, and I think that idea has merit, but we’ll save that one for a later time, too.

So in closing, for now, even with a lowering of the federal personal income tax, there should be plenty of money for the government to fund the programs I’ve discussed above. If the government is having problems funding them, I would first question how the money is being spent, instead of questioning whether or not they have enough.

First, let me thank you for your comment on my blog, Olive, my first, and so far, only comment.  Glad to see that someone is reading.  You’ve also given me something to write about, which I will do so over a number of posts on the various subjects you’ve mentioned.

When you mention that part of the Republican philosophy is no taxes, I’m forced to ask “Which Republicans are against taxes?”  Believe me, I’ve lived under both a Republican Governor and a Democrat Governor, and I’ve been taxed from both sides.  In fact, our former Republican Governor here in Ohio, Bob Taft, was referred to many times as “Bob Tax”.

You may be referring to those who want to lower tax rates, but that is a far cry from no taxes.  By advocating lower rates, those politicians who do so are acknowledging that rates that are too high, and approach confiscatory levels, can serve to depress economic growth and actually result in less revenue collected by the government.  The challenge when making tax policy is to find that fine line where the tax rates are enough so that the government can bring in enough to meet its needs, yet not be too high, thus harming the economy.

In future blog entries, I will address the remaining points of your comment.  Thanks for reading, and don’t be a stranger.  Of course, anyone else who is actually reading this is more than welcome to comment, too.