DanM,

I, too, don't have a major problem with your theoretical divide (rich pay top 20/bottom 20, middle class pay their own 60). I don't even have a problem with the middle class paying part of the bottom.

The problem becomes, as you and Demosthenes were discussing, whose ox gets gored. You list off a bunch of stuff.

Cut pork? Sure. But probably won't happen. What you call pork, constituents love, and it greases the legislative wheels.

Cut waste? Sure. But I think proponents of this always overestimate the potential savings.

Cut corporate welfare? Sure. But as you point out, we'd need meaningful campaign finance reform, and even then, the big employer in the district will always have outsized pull -- which is probably as it should be.

Cut Social Security back to the "minimal support" it was supposed to be originally? Realistically, political suicide. But okay, although I think there's nothing wrong with aspiring to provide a decent retirement for people who work their whole lives. Better, I think, to make Social Security means tested, and phase out benefits based on income. That way, the people who need it, get it, and the people who don't, don't. Most poorer people have a very difficult time saving for retirement, especially with the decline of traditional pensions.

Cut foreign aid? Now you've just gored my bull, buddy. I think we spend far too little on foreign aid, and that in part is why we're having to spend $200 billion fighting a war on terror. Generous, WELL-DIRECTED aid would do more to build our image around the world than any number of invasions. And by providing opportunities to people elsewhere, we reduce or eliminate the conditions that give rise to terrorism.

A great number of people have a great deal of interest in maintaining a large government. Any tax system needs to take that into account.