I basically agree with most of this, but have some serious reservations concerning the material. Here is where We enter the debate over farm subsidies. One should first know that I myself came from a farm family, and live in an agricultural community. I will go even farther, and state that much of the industry of my city relies on ethanol production from a local Plant. I will go further out on a limb, and suggest that guarantees of Income for farm families and agribusiness is in the nature of life support for all of Us. This all said, I do not believe that farm subsidies should be based upon production crops, but on the after-Cost Incomes of the Participants. Price supports for specific Grains, or Price supports for their conversion usage, simply forestalls the market adaptability as expressed by Price changes. We should keep the poor farm families from getting Poorer, but We should never allow for the Rich to get Richer by Government support systems; especially when it distorts the market system for the Products.
Here is another Case where Congress works through Government activity to help the Rich to become Richer. One group of people want to charge royalties on use of loopholes in the Tax Code they find. The other group wants to fully utilize the loopholes found without payment of an excess charge for using that loophole. All such Tax strategy Patents should be denied because of the ease of Discovery of the loopholes, but almost Everyone wants the Patent system maintained, at least for the Patents which they currently hold. This could all be resolved by altering the Patent laws to signify the magnitude of the royalties for which any User can be legally bound by the issuance of the Patent specific. Congress, though, will never accept that Individuals and Business cannot forestall economic innovation through the simple process of demanding Windfall Profits on an idea in the first place.
A final look at Government interference with the natural flow of Business comes here. The interesting fact one should witness here relies on the fact that it is not the Business responsible for the Unemployed who are charged with the Tax increases, but the ones still trying to maintain a labor force. The bill for the extended Unemployment should be thrown back upon the initial Employers, not the current Employers who have their own problems with maintaining their Employees. Some would call this ex-Post facto taxation, yet their action of yesteryears caused the welfare liability today. Is it so much a taxation, as it is a replenish able Fine? The transgression does not reside with the current Employers, so Why should they pay for the misdeeds of Others? lgl