Agree with your comment about a national sales tax making it easy to hide what is actually being paid. The problem is that the current convoluted tax code does the same thing x10. Even worse, it is not only progressive, it is written as such to shape behaviors by discouraging certain things while providing incentives for others. A tax should be blind and universal. One of the problems with any tax solution / revamp is that it must also limit federal spending to a certain percentage of GDP. Without this limit, govts may choose the easy path to balancing any budgetary shortfall: raising taxes, rather than making difficult spending cut decisions.

...That is why groups that are advocating for "minority" issues/causes are protected (as poll after poll shows, Planned Parenthood does not enjoy majority support, neither do a great many "corporations", etc....yet their right to collectively advocate for their issues is protected) as well in this decision. Heaven help us if the majority can simply over-ride that right...

In effect, the SCOTUS decision also empowers "minority issue" individuals (through their associations/memberships) to be able to advocate for their beliefs--which they find most difficult individually.

Reflect that the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn.org, PETA, and many other organizations (these are just a few examples) are corporations and are composed of citizens who share beliefs/values/etc. They, too, are covered in this recent SCOTUS decision regarding "free speech". It recognizes that, as citizens, we come together with others who share our beliefs/concerns/etc. to pool our resources and advocate for that which we deem important (whatever that cause/issue may be).

When you look at what McCain-Feingold did, you realize that it does limit the right of citizens (through their membership in organizations/corporations) to advocate for their issues. As we realize, the collective resources of the many individuals...

In quoting what the POTUS makes, as if the leader of the greatest nation on the planet should be making a fortune for the privilege of serving/leading this country, you conveniently overlook the host of expensive perks that comes with the White House. You cite a few items as if that's it, and attempt to disparage the NRA by this misleading comparison.

Let's not forget that the President has all transport(this means the airplanes, helos, all supporting aircraft, all the massive vehicle fleet, and all costs of procuring/maintaining/staffing/etc.) for himself, friends, and family provided by the taxpayers (at far better comfort levels than can be found even in first class airline seating)--remember his "date night" jaunt to New...

What most anti-2nd Amendment libtards love to push is "gun violence" statistics. What they don't tell you is that included in those "gun violence" statistics are all the rapists/would-be murderers/kidnappers/would-be thieves/etc. who were killed in the commission of their crimes (a much deserved fate). This accounts for the vast majority of those "gun homicides" in those statistics. Also, it accounts for all the "gun violence" committed by criminals who are in possession of firearms illegally (since time eternal has demonstrated that gun-bans/gun laws only serve to limit access by the law abiding. criminals will always find a means with which to carry-out their nefarious schemes). Let's try being honest, Uber...not misleading.

Wow, I can only conclude from your deluded and incoherent stream of babble that you a) spend too much time reading Huff-Post/Kos & listening to NPR and b) you need to put away the crack pipe.

You lead out with such specious claims & strawman cases and then follow-up with ad hominem arguments trying to pass it off as logic and reason. Nothing of what you have attributed to insurance companies, Conservatives, etc. is true. Insurance companies provide care/service for a fee (of which, part of that is profit...hence the "profit motive"). If they did not make a profit of some order, they could not pay their employees and stay in business. Further, there is no incentive for them to deny every claim as you say, because doing so...

and speaking of the point of this article and the popular resistance to any govt attempt to remake/takeover healthcare is that the govt never does anything on-time/on-budget/or efficiently.

so get the govt out of our pockets and out of our lives!

William, if you look back at Mr. Morris' column and focus back on it's point, you see that every tired liberal talking point you have tried to distract with has been defeated and you are left with nothing but your same lib talking points (which are still worn-out and still dishonest).

You should consider learning something new, or actually focusing back on the point of the article.

Clinton's off-budget expenses were notorious...and not factored into his so-called "balanced" budget. What a farce that was. When you couple his creative accounting/figmentary future cuts and never realized caps on Medicare/welfare, his "balanced" budget was smoke and mirrors.

The fact that liberal idiots still tout that myth and expect anyone to believe them is mindboggling.

That is yet another tired Liberal lie...that Clinton had a balanced budget. It did not. It was based upon spending cuts that he was projecting for the next administration...which is rather dishonest. Check it out.

As for Bush, he did not introduce off-budget expenses. You are mental midget if you seriously believe that. It has long been common practice for the DoD, for example, to have off-budget expenses...that's what the military calls "the supplemental"...and it's prepared every year to cover items that did not make the budget as well as unforeseen expenses (such as Clinton's foray into the Balkans, for example, or the current GWOT).

Bush's tax cuts actually did what Reagan's did...and managed to stave-off the...