I worked my entire career in the defense-contract field, from 1957 into the early 1990's, and, for the most part, am proud of the products and services my employers provided to the armed forces. Admittedly, things may have gone overboard, when civilian firms provide security on Army Bases (Ft. Meade, MD, where NSA headquarters resides). Further abuses include the requirement for contractors to "develop and pursue a policy of subcontracting to minority- and women-owned small businesses". This latter policy compounds the profit element for contractors and increases cost to the military. But, for the most part, having industrial firms actually build the products and provide some services, frees up the fighting men and women to FIGHT.

Surprise, surpise! Surely Mr. DeHaven is aware that the Navy does not build ships, the Air Force does not buld fighter aircraft, and the Army does not build tanks. Instead, the armed services contract with (usually) publicly-owned companies to build to specifications desired by the services. This has been going on for a very long time. I once had a copy of the contract between the Army Signal Corps and the Wright Brothers to buy an airplane. It contained certain speed requirements, and extra money if it attained higher speeds. Sadly, after that, one of the Army pilots being trained, a Lt. Selfridge, was killed in a crash near the modern-day site of the Pentagon.

I share Mr. Mitchell's pessimism regarding tax reform. The current tax code is so unbelievably complicated that it would be a monumental effort to overhaul or replace it. I confess that I had difficulty completing my tax return this year (I am a reitred CPA), which was only moderately complicated, involving interest, dividends, option buys and sells, and capital gains. Perhaps our best bet would be to leave the code essentially the same, but effectively FORCE everyone to use the standard deduction, thus limiting the benefit of huge mortgage interest deductions or charitable contributions. This could, if properly structured, result in lower rates, once the income stream has been defined.

Ms. Saunders, I agree with much of what you have expressed. Unfortunately, I see no solution to the illegal immigrant problem, with the various competing interests--cheap migrant labor, cheap labor in undesireable occupations (rendering and packaging meats, incluidng chickens/turkeys, etc.) And, how many of us have hired known illegals (cash only, off the books) to paint our houses or mow our lawns?

Ann, my dear, you are far too harsh on Senator Rubio. I see him as a young Republican desparately trying to salvage a few Hispanic votes from the (almost) inevitable tidal wave of new Democrat votes from grateful illegal immingrants whom the Dems have courted (by offering them all sorts of goodies, including citizenship. Sadly, I see no way to avoid amnesty. Perhaps we could banish California, and cede it back to Mexico. Then, we could require all illegals to move there.

Batjack21, we could deport all 11 to 20 million of them, if we had the cojones. A modern tour bus, similar to those which arrive in Las Vegas every day, can accommodate 47 passengers. So, only 234 thousand bus-loads would effectively get rid of them all. That comes to only about 5000 buses (per day). Just as when cleaning up after a major spill, you stop the continuing spill (close the border), and start bailing, one bucket at a time.

Yeah, Obama had an off-day shooting the basketball. But just think of all his successes. He somehow persuaded the gullible (read ignorant) American public that he was the better choice for President--twice, despite his lack of experience. And just think of all those "green" jobs and the amazing Chevrolet VOLT (I actually saw one last week on the road).

Mr. Benko must be smoking marijuana or something if he thinks that a simple majority in both Houses of Congress would suffice to repeal ObamaCare. He must be ignorant of the veto power of the President, and Obama would likely die before he allowed his signature accomplishment to be repealed. Perhaps the Congress could simply refuse to appropriate the funds necessary to implement ObamaCare, but that would leave an even messier mess.

I simply can not understand why the Congress and the President fail to see the obvious. If everyone had a job and was working and paying income taxes, the deficit would turn into a surplus. Ergo, why does not the government hire everyone who is unemployed, much as FDR did with the CCC, which did some useful work as well as providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.

I doubt that many of Mr. Shedlock's readers have any money in Cypriot banks. For that matter, U.S. banks either, (as deposits, that is). But there are lots of us who invest in the stock of U.S. banks. The latter, as a group, have recovered nicely from the meltdown in 2008, and, for the most part, are deemed safe as investments.