Much has been made over the last 48 hours from the report published by the U.S. Census Bureau that the income of the richest 1% of Americans has increased by 275% in the last ten years, while the income of the poorest Americans grew at only a small fraction of that amount. The lowest 60% of earners have lost significant portion of the aggregate income in the U.S. over the last ten years, while the top 20% and top 5% have seen monstrous share increases. Over the last decade, the bottom 50% of people have not grown their net worth measurably. The top 10 percent have tripled their net worth.

The statistics are apolitical and unassailable. The rich are getting richer very, very quickly, while the poor are actually making less on an inflation-adjusted basis, while the middle class is simply disappearing. We have become a nation of haves and have nots.

This situation leads me to a simple question. There is a bitter ideological argument going on in Washington over increased taxation of the wealthiest few percent of Americans. The disagreement is so bitter that it stands in the way of any meaningful negotiation of fiscal reform. The most common argument stated for not increasing taxes on the wealthiest is, "...to tax the job creators would be economically counter-productive".

But the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. Unemployment and underemployment have reached unacceptable levels and now appear to have some permanency at double-digit levels. Very simply, the "job creators" aren't creating any jobs. They are simply increasoing their own net worth and lifestyle while the poor get poorer and the middle class disappears.

So the question is...if you would try to avoid simply repeating a tired ideological soundbite response about taxing the job creators, can anyone explain why it would it be wrong to include increased taxation on both the wealthiest individuals as well as corporations who are getting unneeded tax benefits as an element in a broad program of fiscal reform, including significant cuts in federal spending as well as entitlements?

Remember, I'm saying that any such increased taxes should be an element of a much broader reform of fiscal policy, including significant spending and entitlement cuts, maybe even a phased-in Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

Someone try to answer the question, please.