How about anyone can vote as long as they can pass a breathalyzer test, and members of the armed forces can vote twice?

Is the church the people that participate in it? The hierarchy that administers it? The (current) doctrine that states its ideals? Like it or not, all institutions have become more democratic in the last 2000 years. The state is no longer the king, but the citizens. You don't lose your citizenship by saying the state is wrong. Should you be drummed out of your church for the same thing?

This whole obsession with voter fraud is kind of amusing. Committing fraud to win an election is illegal and messy. There are many legal and effective means to the same end - massively outspend your opponent, whisper campaigns, attack ads, etc. Also, it seems that an organized effort to commit fraud would simply involve too many people to keep it quiet - the downfall of most consipracy theories.

Actually, LL, Jesse James is not included. You can imagine the firestorm that would erupt if he were suggested. We would probably have to re-fight the civil war if that happened. On one side, "Heritage not Hate" pickup drivers with Confederate battle flag bumperstickers, and Ozark survivalists bringing the firepower. On the other, suburban high school kids and big-city liberals, armed with Glocks supplied by the East Side Locos. Not to mention the pompous Jayhawks telling us how much better they would fight, if we would bring the war over there and use their referees.

Thanks for the sympathy, everyone, but really the loss is yours for never having known her. She was tough, hilarious, friendly to everyone, and always open to new ideas and experiences. Her generosity was humbling - I got an award at a charity ride for largest pledge - it was from her. I did not bring up her story to make a political point, just to illustrate the fact that lack of insurance, together with a certain foolhardiness, can lead to death sooner rather than later, as we all have an appointment eventually.

OK, I'll be the first to say I knew someone who died for lack of insurance. We worked together at a large KC company that went under. She was unable to find another position with coverage. She was also fiercely independent, a single mother who bought a house and was saving money for her daughter's college education. She developed a condition that some people manage to live with, but it progressed. She gambled with her life and lost. If she had had the surgery to correct it, she would have lived, but may have lost her house and savings. That said, policy shouldn't be based on anecdotes, but on facts. The studies that have been cited here are methodologically sound estimates. There is a problem. As far as the free care option goes, it's only free if you can't afford to pay. Otherwise, all of your assets will go before it becomes free. And of course, it's not really free. Those with insurance are paying for those without. As costs continue to rise, and health care coverage benefits fall, people are forced into tough choices like my friend.

So you blithely dismiss the opinions of all hypocrites? Here's a bonus: According to Godel's theorem, all logical systems are either incomplete or inconsistent. If you can dismiss the opinions of anyone that is ignorant, then everyone is covered. Enjoy.

Seth is right. The mortgage interest deduction doesn't really affect homeownership rates, and its benefits accrue mostly to high-income individuals who have high marginal tax rates and own expensive homes. There's a good summary of research at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412099-mortgage-deduction-reform.pdf

JDog and Steven, thank you both for an interesting and informative discussion, devoid of the partisan rhetoric that is almost all we read here. I learned some things, and my hope for the possibility of civil and sincere discourse among people with differing viewpoints was renewed.

I have to admit that I did not read beyond the first sentence of this letter. Accordingly, I think it proper to avoid commenting on it.

Seth, wouldn't they be just as likely to vote for politicians who promise greater benefits and lower taxes, like we have all been doing all our lives? How does taxing them change that equation?

I don't know about the 47%. Of population? Probably not. Households, maybe. How many are completely disabled and cannot work? How many subsist on the black market and won't be declaring income anyway? So you want to raise taxes on those who are left, the honest working poor? Go ahead, but don't kid yourself that you are making them better citizens by making sure they have skin in the game. They have probably already been skinned.

Not going to be a viable write-in candidate. Not even the newspaper can spell his name correctly.

Another possibility is that the tax subsidy, which makes home ownership cheaper, allows sellers to increase their asking prices, resulting in inflated real estate values.

Yes, it would have been Jesse's chickens coming home to roost, since he had claimed AIDS only resulted from "unnatural acts" when he opposed funding research, totally ignoring the possibility of getting it from tainted blood transfusions. You can recognize that fact without hoping that it actually occurs.

Nowhere does she say she hopes that will happen. While we all usually think of justice as a desirable thing, I can think of many instances where I personally hope to avoid justice.

Totenberg's comments were offensive. She implied that the Lord gives diseases as retribution. She said that this would be "justice". I would not have had a problem with her being fired for saying what she said. However, she did not say that she wished Helms or his grandchildren got AIDS from a transfusion.

Makes sense to me. Insurance doesn't cover OTC meds. If you were allowed to use pre-tax dollars to buy stuff over the counter, people would be buying health food, vitamins, and bogus medical devices advertised on late-night TV with their HSA funds. And much, much more.

If God gives a final exam, I'm sunk.

DDT was very effective when it was introduced, but bedbugs had grown resistant to it, and was not really being used even before it was banned in 1972.

There are many different price indices calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy. Social Security uses the CPI-W measure to adjust payments. This measure does include food and energy costs. The CPI-U for All Items Less Food and Energy (called "core CPI") is used in setting monetary policy as manipulation of those policies can't generally influence food and energy costs.

According to the website www.govtrack.us, farms are exempt from the regulations. S 510 covers facilities such as warehouses and factories. Individuals growing their own food in their own garden will not be affected.

Arminius, I think you are on the right track. Allow them to build it if they want, and if you think it's insensitive or something, then you can refuse to attend services there. That'll show them.

Rather than party or ideology, votes were pretty clear-cut along regional lines: The original House bill: Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%) Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%) The Senate bill: Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%) Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Sometimes, instead of looking for the perfect car, bargaining for it, making monthly payments, getting insurance, paying taxes on it, buying gasoline, and taking it in for oil changes and tuneup, sometimes, I say, it just makes more sense to take a cab.