If you agree that my formula of the middle class paying for their pro-rata share of the government burden is correct, then you can convince each of them why they should be paying for a portion of a Hooters resturant in Shreveport, LA or a 600 million dollar bridge to connect an Alaskan island with 200 people to the mainland. You can explain why they should pay for a provision in the Medicare Reform Bill that restricts Medicare from negotiating for a volume price break like Wal-Mart or any other business would do. You can explain why we send billions in foreign aid to countries even when we know the money does not go into the hands of the people in need. And you can explain why each taxpayer should take home a little less to fund each of these priorities.

If you share the burdens of paying for the government on a pro-rata basis based on income earned above the poverty level, then you will have a lot more voters asking questions, holding politicians accountable and demanding value for their tax dollars. As long as the rich are told to cover everyone's tab with respect to taxes, then you are going to have an electorate that is best described by the old line from the movie animal house. "Fat, drunk & stupid". They just have no motivation to care because its not affecting their financial well being when the money someone else earned is wasted.

The priorities we fund sound great until we see how they can reduce our take home pay. Once its coming our of your pocket, however, then it becomes a totally different ballgame where value and accountability matter. Spreading the burden is the ONLY way you will ever reform government and thats why I think no meaningful reforms will take place until you put a flat tax in place with exceptions for income below the poverty line.