Do you want to increase tax revenue, or tax rates? The two are not necessarily the same, depending on which side of the Laffer Curve we currently occupy.

And don't write off other ways to reduce the deficit:

• a revenue reduction concurrent with an even larger spending reduction. (Even during Bill Clinton's second term, when there was a healthy federal surplus, opinion polls of that era showed most Americans thought the government was spending too much. If spending was scaled back to Clinton Administration levels, in partial deference to that sentiment, we would instantly be back in surplus.)
• the "Penny Plan," surprisingly endorsed by the liberal Lanny Davis (although one must wonder about the sincerity of that endorsement)

Everyone understands that this is a fundamental tenet of the founding documents of the United States, but that doesn't prevent it from being quietly ignored by those who, say, disparage the Constitution as "a charter of negative liberties."

That, too, should be made explicitly illegal, just as accepting bribes is illegal (and is occasionally prosecuted).

And we're never going to see all of them refuse, of their own accord. That's why legislation or a constitutional amendment is needed, making it illegal to advocate for money to be spent in their own district.

I can hardly believe your naiveté with that statement. They certainly will stay here. If 116 illegal immigrants who have been convicted of homicide are allowed to stay, why in the world would these kids be deported? They won't be. It is said that we urgently need to create a "path to citizenship" for them, and the reason for this is purely political: they and their descendents will reliably vote Democrat for generations to come.

Consider two brothers born in Beijing: Ming and Ling. Ming decides to enter the U.S. illegaly, and Ling decides to stay in the country of which he is a citizen. Which brother is more deserving of benefits paid for by U.S. taxpayers: Ming, who broke our immigration laws, or Ling, who obeyed our immigration laws? The answer is obviously Ling. And the other 1.3 billion citizens of China are equally deserving as Ling. But we don't provide those 1.3 billion people with any kind of social safety net. (It's fiscally impossible... merely doing so for the 0.3 billion U.S. citizens has recently created trillion-dollar deficits.) Yet you argue we should provide those benefits to the less-deserving brother, Ming. Are you starting to see why that position has no credibility?

Again, your naiveté is amazing. If we were to become selective about who gets in, I'd be in favor of expanded immigration. Who wouldn't? But under our current policy of lax border enforcement, the vast majority of immigrants are unskilled, functionally illiterate, and disproportionately disposed to criminal behavior, with no hope of ever contributing more than they receive from the social safety net. Please, please try to reconcile that fact with your pie-in-the-sky ideology.

A pork project is, by definition, good for the economy of the local area in which the money is spent, and at the same time is a net negative for the national economy.

The cumulative effect of thousands of pork projects is to make every local economy poorer than it otherwise would be. In Congresscritter Smith's district, the positive effect of the projects that Smith secures for his district (influx of money) tends to be outweighed by the negative effect of the projects that the other 434 congresscritters secured for their districts (outflux of money). The exception is when a congresscritter is particularly slick at scoring unearned freebies for his local economy, at the expense of the national economy.

Eisenhower didn't articulate the problem in these terms. If he had, Joe Schmoe would be closer to understanding (and using his vote to do something about) one of the worst aspects of our system of government. The president made a campaign promise to "fundamentally transform the United States of America," and pork-barrel politics is the aspect most in need of "fundamental transformation," but sadly, it has only been reinforced since 2008.

A local magazine surveyed dentists, asking "who, besides yourself, is the best dentist in our city?" By not allowing dentists to vote for themselves, the survey produced a much truer guide to where to get quality dental care. Similarly, a constitutional amendment that bars congresscritters from seeking to have money spent in their own districts would boost the overall effectiveness of government. Lockheed would finally be pressured to source its F-35 components from the most efficient suppliers, rather than from the most pork-ified network of suppliers.

Are there at least windows behind the screens so that they can be moved out of the way in the event of a problem?

That would defeat the point of deleting the cockpit window, which is to save weight (aerospace glass is very heavy), simplify and strengthen the structure, eliminate a potential point of failure for cabin pressurization, and improve aerodynamics.

What is needed to increase your comfort level is redundancy -- a backup camera in case the primary is damaged by, say, a bird strike, and a backup power source in case the primary power source fails.

If you've never watched "Seven Minutes of Terror," which explains the crazy but successful scheme to lower the Curiousity rover onto Mars, do yourself a favor and go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

It's the best video the U.S. Government has ever produced.

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.

I've seen so much over the top hype and hysteria from the climate change deniers

I don't pay attention to hype or hysteria, but I do pay attention to this reasoned comment from James Lovelock:

"The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened."

Hobbyists and amateurs will always be free to create content; but a professional news-gathering organization, or a site like C|NET that attempts to provide impartial product reviews, needs ad revenue. Heck, even Slashdot needs some revenue to keep the lights on.

Early predictors of the tuition bubble: John Stossel and Matthew Continetti http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

In the news this week, Mark Cuban on the tuition bubble: http://www.businessinsider.com...

Making the bubble worse: the current Administration, by nationalizing the student loan industry and further removing market forces from individual decisionmaking: http://heritageaction.com/2013...

Remeber, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Most of the content on the web is seemingly free, but only because advertising covers the costs of creating new content and keeping old content available.

Without advertising, how do you propose to cover those costs? If your solution is, "everyone who is paid to create web content should become a government employee and be paid with tax dollars," I reject your solution a priori.

You may be right that they aren't issued cutting-edge laptops. Nonetheless, think about this: thanks to incomes growing faster than the rate of inflation, basic commodities, like a gallon of milk, consume a significantly smaller fraction of a family's income than they did a generation ago. (This is known as Engel's Law.) And that effect is orders-of-magnitude larger for technological commodities, like a gigaflop of computing power.

Government services, too, ought to be costing a smaller fraction of a family's income. (Especially because government uses technology to provide its services. Most government workers sit in front of a computer all day.) But government services are about the only thing that is bucking the trend, and consuming a larger fraction of a family's income!