[PBzeer]

What you seem to fail to recognize sck5, is any sense of proportion. There are areas where federal involvement is proper, and taxes to fund those areas is not a problem. Especially, some form of a flat tax, or at the very least, a tax code without ANY loopholes. As it is not the role of government to either encourage, nor discourage lawful activity. Which is what the current, convoluted, code does. In other words, taxes should be at the minimum level to fund those functions, which are within the proper role of the federal government.

There is no constitutional basis for the federal government to be in the entitlement business. Any assistance given by the federal government, whether to individuals, groups, corporations, or lower government levels, should be of a limited and close-ended nature. For instance, if you want to live in Florida, don't expect my tax money to fund your rebuilding costs everytime a hurricane flattens it. You are free to live where ever you choose, if you want to live in a high risk area, then you assume the risk, not the public treasury.

I am unaware of any endeavor where federal involvement does not lead to higher costs and less efficiency. The ethanol fiasco comes readily to mind. As well as the soaring rise of college tuition, which is based not on real world factors such as costs or inflation, but instead are inked to the amount of government assistance provided.

You speak of the burden on future generations, while blithely ignoring that every attempt to fix the biggest burden they face, which is funding the entitlement programs liberals so revere , has been met with a resounding NO.

You decry the lack of attention to infrastructure, without condemnation of the divertment of funds for such projects going to things such as bike trails and public transit. Which are nothing more than attempts to influence behavior, which is not a government function.

An ever growing government got us in the mess we are in. More government won't solve nor fix anything, only make it worse.