As much as I agree with author on all the points, I have to disagree with the statement that "immigration encouraged to stop the price mechanism from working here".

I came to this country as a "skilled immigrant worker". Before hiring me, the US company had to go through the lengthy recruiting process and my wages had to be at least above average for my profession in the area of recruitment. Not a single time I have been hired instead of an American citizen or because my rate was lower. I think that my compensation is completely adequate for the type of work I do. If someone wants to earn more, he/she will need to get better skills, not just be born in the US.

Unfortunately, I see many unqualified people in the IT industry, for example. Many of them jumped on board in the late 90s and had very little training and no real interest in their job. When they get fired, they cry that those immigrants are taking their jobs. Sorry, but you were fired only because you were lazy and stupid.

The wave of outsourcing was indirectly caused by insufficient quota for immigrant worker visas. Professionals, who come to work in the US, also spend their money here and we pay the same exact taxes as the US citizens, while we don't qualify for all the same benefits. (It's not a complaint, just a fact.) We support the US economy. Outsourcing supports only the foreign economies and corporate "fat cats".

I love the comment, "Those with more to lose should pay more.' I'm sorry, but today, the top 5% of american taxpayers pay 60% of federal taxes. Obviously, the comment isn't an original thought.

Secondly, "the trickle down theory does not work" is an interesting conclusion. Under current economic theory, a dollar delivered to someone or some company who creates jobs or capital has a higher multiplicative effect in the economy. For example, it goes into property, plant or equipment to increase production, which employ more people, who earn more money, who spend in local stores, yada, yada, yada. A dollar given to the end user is used to buy food, or clothing. Good, but not as good economically as a business or employer. Now, that's not mean it's economics. During the Reagan era, this economic theory drove the federal tax receipts 100% in eight years, from 500 billion to one trillion dollars. How is that for proof.

ALL Americans, and for that matter the rest of the world, benefit from defense spending by the United States. Because someone has made more money and has more to lose, doesn't mean they should pay more than their fair share. In this country, it's promised that we all have equal opportunity, not equal results. Those that have attained greater "treasure" shouldn't be asked to "spread the wealth around". Why didn't he spread his wealth around when he sold his business? I'm sure the federal government would have greatly appreciated some extra revenue.
As for there being no proof that "trickle down" works...I say- where do you live? Look around, man This prosperous country is living proof that it works.
As for saving tax revenues in good times to offset deficits in bad times-that would work if the liberal tax-and-spenders didn't get their hands on it first and spend it like drunken sailors.

Russ Coburn agrees with Dan Rodricks. Russ Coburn's ideas receive Rodricks'' endorsement.

I disagree with Russ Coburn's conclusions and green eye-shaded recitation. I don't buy ink by the carload, but must piggy-back on this blog with my criticism.

Life ain't fair. Hair is fair, sometimes. Complexions can be fair. For real fair, look to the county and state fairgrounds.