True introspection and sincere analysis would have been appreciated. For example, raising taxes on "the wealthiest Americans" while reducing them, I guess, for everyone else, is not a "no-brainer." I assume that the wealthiest Americans already pay more, both on a percentage as well as dollar basis, than the rest of us. That said, they should pick up our check? Assuming they pay less (on a dollar or percentage basis) than "the rest of us" but are adhering to a tax system that both parties have created, is it their fault that the outcome isn't as you'd hoped?
Perhaps The Sun can tell me, as I raise my children, when we've reached the magical line where the wealthy have paid their fair share? I'm also curious as to why when the wealthy utilize the tax system (created by both parties) they are taking advantage of "loopholes" but when the rest of us use it we should be entitled to new and increased "credits" and the like? What is the difference between the two except for which socioeconomic bucket in which one happens to reside?
I seem to recall that the founding document for our country provides for "the pursuit of happiness." I'm not sure that it was designed so that we can have, no matter what The Sun tries to call it, wealth redistribution or a "fixed game" or outcome. Since it is such a "no brainer" to shift the tax burden to others (those with the "deep pockets" you cite) for a different outcome of the game, would you be so kind as to tell us clearly what the new rules are? When those new changes don't provide the desired outcome (which they will not), what then? Back seeking more money from "that group?"
An analysis that took into account those types of considerations would have been appreciated and frankly expected, rather than an easy "lowest common denominator" perspective.
Mike Poling, Eldersburg