We have, of course, been seeing this process in spades in recent decades, pushed in various nations by both leftist and rightist parties -- its primary advocates in the US, after all, have been those two notorious leftists Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. (George Will once sourly pointed out that "Reagan's version of conservatism is wildly popular because it consists of giving the citizen a dollar's worth of government for 75 cents worth of taxes, with the rest being borrowed.") Poor Keynes -- by honestly pointing out that there are some situations in which it really is desirable to run a deficit -- unintentionally opened the gates of Hell by giving politicians the excuse they had dreamed of for centuries to tell the citizens that it's ALWAYS the right time to run a deficit, with the knowledge that by the time the roof falls in they themselves will be safely out of office.

Thus my belief that running a deficit is one of those infrequent situations in which a properly revised US Constitution should require a Congressional supermajority, and probably a pretty big one. We will, of course, see this on about the same day that O.J. finds the real killers.

"I don't mind a flat rate, whether it's an income tax or a sales tax, that has the effect of taking more money from the rich. But a tax specifically aimed at the rich demonstrates the chief flaw of democratic governance."

Why? Because it decreases the overall economic productivity of a society? But every time the progressivity of taxes in a nation has approached that point, the electorate has responded by throwing out the leftist party and replacing it with the rightist party, reversing the process (contrary to Adams' fever dream). Britain is an absolutely classic example of the process, but hardly the only one -- it's politically routine.

Because it's "unfair" to tax people at a higher rate merely because they make vastly more money for the same amount of work effort? Morally, of course, that is pure BS (even given the obvious difficulties in precisely measuring "work effort"). And, indeed, if you really did follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, you'd tax the richest American and the poorest American exactly the same total AMOUNT in taxes each year, not merely the same percentage of their incomes. After all, surely Joe Quadriplegic could make exactly as much money per day as Bill Gates if only he REALLY chose to work as hard...

(Not -- thank God -- that even advocates of a "flat-percentage" income tax like yourself really favor that, either. What they actually favor is a progressive income tax with two rates: zero for some people such as Joe Quadriplegic, and some other figure for the rest of us. Obvious next question: why not more than two rates for it?)

I don't mind a flat rate, whether it's an income tax or a sales tax, that has the effect of taking more money from the rich.

Exactly, we are all equal before the law, except apparently, when it comes to our money.

The traditional difference between American and European aristocracy was that the former was merit-based while the latter was more likely inherited. In the US class system there was not just upward but downward mobility. It feels to me like this sense is fraying--that the gulf between lower- and upper-middle is becoming much harder to cross, while those who make it into the ranks of "upper" have to acquire a very bad coke habit or be truly idiotic in the management of their money before they, or their children, run any risk of having to worry about things like paying for health insurance.

Why and how? The income tax as first instituted was a tax specifically aimed at the rich.

Two centuries later it seems obvious that Adams was mistaken about who were the radicals and who were the conservatives. The "rich" have demonstrated time and time again that they are the corrosive and destructive influence on society, not the dreaded "masses".

So "hiking taxes on the wealthy to fund a health care entitlement" is a bad idea, even if said tax hikes on the wealthy aren't big enough to significantly reduce the nation's economic productivity?

Yes.

Aside from whether a national health care entitlement is a good idea, it's a horrible idea to allow the masses to vote themselves a share of someone else's money.

I don't mind a flat rate, whether it's an income tax or a sales tax, that has the effect of taking more money from the rich. But a tax specifically aimed at the rich demonstrates the chief flaw of democratic governance.

As for John Adams' terrors on this subject, I must confess that he was never my favorite Founder, given the Sedition Act and all that.

Fortunately, that subset of the population probably doesn't vote anyway (though they might be more likely to if not for laws against selling spirits while the polls are open).