Article from the New York Times archives dated Sept. 19, 1972.
LOWELL, Mass., Sept. 18-- "The brother of John F Kerry, an anti-war candidate for the Democratic nomination to the House in the Fifth Massachusetts District, was arrested with another Kerry campaign worker early today and charged with breaking into the building housing the headquarters of a Kerry opponent.

Can we call that Kerrygate? Where were Woodward and Bernstein? Did they choose to ignore it?

I have yet to hear a reasonable reply to "how will gay marriage, or civil union, hurt you or me? I'm still waiting. At my last Republican precinct caucus resolutions were made. The first was to ban gay marriage. I was the only nay sayer. The second was to ban gay adoption. That was more than I could take, so I stood up and said "I ain't gonna sit hear and listen to any more of this gay bashing bull shit" and at that point walked out.

Craig Westover in Pioneer Press column of November 16, "Regardless of one's moral view of homosexuality, same-sex marriage ought to be a conservative objective. It's a cause that is right, embracing, in the best American tradition, all men and all women."

PACs are a big item in influencing our politicians to vote a particular way and this is the case with both parties. I believe that any PAC giving more than 90% to one party actually owns that party and that party won't bite the hand that feeds them.Among those of the top 20 PAC donors in the nation that give over 80% to one party there are seven to the Democratic party and one to the Republican party. They are Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 93%, American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees 98%, Laborers Union 83%, Assn of Trial Lawyers of America 95%, Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union 98%, Teamsters Union 93% and Ironworkers Union 81%, all owners of the Democratic Party. One PAC contributor that is virtually unknown is the National Beer Wholesalers Assn who gave 80% to the Republican party.

The best example is the trial lawyers who control the Democratic party and they repay by voting against all legislation having to do with tort reform by party line.

We hear about the American Medical Assn and the pharmaceutical manufacturers owning the Republican party both giving 69% and 73% to the Republican party. That's not even close to 90%.

See www.opensecrets.org/pacs/topacs.asp.

The bosses of the major oil companies were summoned to congress on Wednesday and asked to justify their windfall profits. "My constituents think that someone rigged the prices and someone --them-is getting ripped off," said Sen Peter Domenici, a New Mexico Republican not hitherto known as a scourge of business. The scene recalled past oil shocks, when bosses were also called to Capitol Hill, accused of price gouging, and then hit with price controls and special windfall taxes.

Congress would do well not to repeat those "remedies" because both turned out to be disastrous. The case against price controls is especially powerful. When oil prices spike, it is because of scarcity - for example, scarcity caused by hurricane damage to petroleum infrastructure on the Gulf Coast. The best way to manage that scarcity is for producers to make a special effort to make a special effort to get oil to the market and for consumers to make a special effort to cut back. Higher prices encourage both of those responses; rather than complain about price gouging, congress should celebrat price signals. By contrast, controlled prices create no pressure for extra production or conservation. They just encourage gas lines: Witness the 1970s.

A tax on windfall profits is less counterproductive but stii bad. For one thing, it's not as though th profits are socially useless. Evan in the absence of a special tax, they generate regular tax revenue for both federal and state governments as well as dividends for retirement plans. For another, the profits are a spur to new investment; taxing them reduces the return that companies will expect to make on new oil finds or refineries, with the result that there will less oil and gas available in the future and hence higher prices.

For the past two decades, the United States has enjoyed cheap oil.Companies have reacted by building no new refineries and holding back on some exploration projects; consumers have reacted by buying ever-larger homes and cars and forgetting about conservation. Now, thanks to surging demand for energy in China and India, the era of cheap oil has ended, at least for the time being. Congress should play a role in the protection of vulnerable groups from the consequences, for example, by offering refundable tax credits to low-income families that depend on heating oil. But it's main policy should be to stand back and let price signals do their work.

Current views on the flat tax.
Pro Comments:
This law, if enacted, would free up millions of dollars for investment in the economy and bring about unprecedented economic prosperity.
Under the flat tax, the typical American Family will see it's income rise from $5000 to $7000 in five years.
No more tax lobbyists who roam the halls of congress in search of special favors.
No more favoritism toward certain citizens.
No more loop holes.
No tax breaks for corporations
No tax shelters.
No depreciation schedules.
No more marriage penalty.
Gone will be the tax lawyers.
No more phony class-war rhetoric.
Some 232 billion dollars of our resources are squandered on needless paper work just to meet the demands of the tax code, or $900 for every man, woman and child.
Money will be taxed only one time.
Famly of 4 would pay no tax until earnings reach $43,300.

Comments against:
"It ain't fair."
"This is only for the fuckin wealthy."
(call it class envy)
"How about dividend and interest income?"
(these are paid with money already taxed)
"How about capital gains?"
(they are also paid with money already taxed. Under the present system capital losses are taken as a deduction so they both cancel each other out.)

My personal view on this is that opposition to flat tax is totally based on class envy.