You've gotta be crazy to think that politicians would ever give up the system that you've correctly characterized as providing loopholes in return for campaign cash. But even more than that, our Byzantine tax code permits unconstitutional social engineering, thus giving our noble politicians power, as well as wealth. Flat tax? Good idea, but don't hold your breath.
>> Barry E Lerner Monday, November 16, 2009 10:39 AM

Allow me to compliment the remarks above by Barry E. Lerner. I couldn't have said it better myself. Barry "gets it." Too many don't.
>> Rita Monday, November 16, 2009 1:29 PM

The government, science, organized religion, social norms, etc., attempt to shape our reality. When awareness of reality "is", "being crazy" is just what people will call those cutting edge in their thinking, in any field. Habitual thinking is ineffective. The only constant is change, but our belief systems limit us to thinking the old way is the only way. Opening to the larger reality, probability for change also opens, and is what is happening right now everywhere. Thinking Barry "gets it" thinking a flat tax may help reduce the chaos in our society this current loopsided[sic] system has helped create, is probably not an effective way to think, unless you are happy with the system as it is. Love Bette
>> Bette S Baysinger Monday, November 16, 2009 3:50 PM

With editing to get the above post to fit, my meaning was obscured. I meant to say "thinking Barry 'gets it'" when saying change is impossible is probably not effective thinking, and we can do better because we can change things. Love Bette
>> Bette S Baysingerb Monday, November 16, 2009 3:55 PM

Bette S criticizes my remarks using the straw man technique; note that I neither said that change is impossible nor implied that we should be happy with the current system of taxation. What I did say was that politicians are so satisfied with the wealth, power and political longevity that they now enjoy that it is quite unrealistic to expect them to relinquish any. Want change? Consider the unfunded obligations of today (S.S., Medicare, Stimulus) and those being proposed. Now understand that there is no way to pay for them. What happens when government can't meet its obligations? They print money, lots of it, and the country enters a hyperinflationary death spiral; think of Weimar Germany in 1930. There's your change; like it?
>> Barry E Lerner Monday, November 16, 2009 6:02 PM

Score another big point for Barry. Sorry, Bette. He clearly "gets it" and, respectfully, you don't. We need "tax change we can believe in" and it's unfortunately not possible for the House Ways and Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee to accomplish that. Why, you ask? They simply don't want to do so since is injurious to their power and political positions; e.g., committee chairmanships and special interest campaign contributions. And, unfortunately, Barry, that is sadly why we are very unlikely to ever have our tax code revised to incorporate a flat tax.
>> Rita Camp Monday, November 16, 2009 7:27 PM

Thanks, Rita. Let's hope that somehow things will improve...somehow.
>> Barry E Lerner Monday, November 16, 2009 8:04 PM

I'm not trying for points, what I am trying to say is that just because that is the way it works, doesn't mean it always has to be that way. If you, or Barry has a better plan, please advise. Otherwise this is just more of the same BS. Your belief systems limit your reality to a sub-set of the solution space that does not contain the answer. Not my quote but I am unwilling to throw my friend to the dogs, are you that (not that there is anything wrong with dogs) or can we talk? Love Bette
>> BS Baysinger Monday, November 16, 2009 9:55 PM

My belief system is not black or white, it's always grey. And it certainly does not limit my ability to face reality. I am a realist, sometimes to a fault and to my personal detriment. And I certainly do not engage in "group think" on any topic. I don't claim to have a solution. We can agree that because that is the way it works, doesn't mean it always has to be that way. It's just that I'm a retired federal lobbyist of 30+ years, and it has been my experience that every piece of legislation passed, regardless of the political party in power, gets passed only if it is in their self-interest, not what's good for our country. That is just the way is and why the status quo almost always prevails.
>> Rita Camp Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:07 PM

Have you not noticed, Rita, that there are among us good, decent people, clever people, who have nonetheless abandoned reason in favor of emotion, and whose beliefs are as a result unshakeable? Incidentally, does your spelling of "grey" bespeak a history of living in England or some part of the Commonwealth, or simply reading British books?
>> Barry E Lerner Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:39 PM

Rita: “That is just the way is and why the status quo almost always prevails." Bette: At least you said "almost". I can see that you are invested in your beliefs, but the time for change is now. I suppose you can sit at the sides and watch it happen, or you could use your 30+ years of experience to help create the change that is happening. Barry we all are limited by our belief systems, once you realize how much so, it opens you up to being skeptical AND open minded. I will risk losing your good favor to suggest that my belief system is bigger than yours, and it affords me a larger reality. Understanding how things work and how we may change things is open to anyone with open-minded skepticism. Love Bette
>> BS Baysinger Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:54 PM

Hi Barry and Rita, You two and whomever may read this may want to go read this Huffington Post information on status quo, and how it blinds us to believing change is impossible, well some of us anyway. Change happens. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/crashing-the-gates-of-the_b_363622.html Love Bette
>> BS Baysinger Friday, November 20, 2009 2:03 AM

Sorry, Barry and Bette, for not responding sooner. Barry, some have abandoned reason with emotion. I'm not British. Bette, I never read the Huffington Post. Too nutty California-ish for me. But I have been working extremely hard to affect change -- to defeat Obamacare and cap-and-trade. I have a strong aversion to tax increases. I'm also working with others to try to figure out how we can have term limits adopted for Members of Congress. That would be change I could really believe in -- really! No one is paying me for my work. It is happily on me!
>> Rita Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:27 PM

I had, initially, been against term limits because, a)we already have them in the form of votes on election day, and b)there might well come a time when the incumbent is an outstanding statesman and any possible replacements are sleazy politicians. But after seeing how Slick Willie Clinton could, without term limits, have been re-elected forever, maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.
>> Barry E Lerner Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:05 PM

Barry, like you, I too believe we have term limits on election day. But unfortunately we now have a permanent elitist ruling class. There are a number of incumbents who are statesmen and who sincerely want to make a difference, but a system based on seniority limits their ability to do so. Quickly some become frustrated and disappointed about their inability to make a differece. They must wait their turn and that can take many years because we have so many career politicans. Term limits would allow turnover and I believe it would be a good thing. All you need to do is look at the current leadership in the House and Senate and the current committee chairs to become convinced that it's time for term limits. What are your thoughts?
>> Rita Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:02 AM