Unfortunately, to solve our fiscal crisis we're going to have to cut a whole lot more than just "unnecessary" spending. We're going to have to cut spending on lots of things that we all think are both necessary and desirable. But we'll have to stop spending on them simply because we can't afford not to.

On the revenue side, we will have to increase tax revenues. In the long run, there's simply no question about it. The proposals in the initial post are several thoughtful ways revenues can be increased. Are they the "right" ways? The "only" ways? No.

I think tax policy is going to take a whole lot of thought. In the end, someone's ox is going to be gored. Personally, I'm still in favor of higher taxes on those who can afford to pay them and who have benefitted the most from some pretty rewarding tax policy over the last couple of decades. I'm also in favor of lowering corporate tax rates. Some of those costs could be funded by totally eliminating tax loopholes and benefits--do the sugar beet farmers need sugar price controls? Is the ethanol program that has enriched corn producers worth it? Do milk producers have to be subsidized? Are the billions and billions of dollars spent on low income housing, which enrichs mainly bankers desirable? (That was a business I know a LOT about as I was one who was enriched.) The list could go on and on.

We continually talk about the power of the free market, yet imbedded in our tax policy are billions and billions of dollars we spend as the result of businesses having paid lobbyists to create loopholes and benefits to take the risk out of their businesses. Is this right? Should we be funding the high risk end of the free market, guaranteeing profits to those who say they are "risk takers"?

In the end, someone is going to be paying higher taxes. The skill will be in choosing to increase taxes on those who will have the minimum bad effect on the economy.

Does our Congress have such skill? Please...I really don't want to be depressed today.