Supposed "supply side" econ is based on the ridiculous notion that there is some limited amount of money and that rich people will continually "invest" money so as to make more money.  Both of these assumptions are not just faulty.  They are asinine. The government SPENDS money into existence and the bank loan process creates credit/money (which of the two is true depends on your personal definition of money).

I don't see what is so hard to understand about fiat money, yet people just can't seem to grasp it.  The government creates money and buys an aircraft carrier and then the government TAXES the money back out of the economy.  It is the tax that gives the money value in that the money must be used to offset a tax obligation.  Were it not for the tax the money would have no value.  All the deficit spending has created a glut of dollars and so oil prices are high as measured in dollars.

Then we have the mortgage people and the securities people that, due to the repeal of Glass Steagall, are able to "create money/credit" as a bank and we have even more dollar dilution. Result = Housing bubble just like result = Dot.com bubble earlier (Glass-Steagall and capital gains tax cuts happened in 1997). And the Gingrich people had already made it almost impossible for the shareholders to sue the thieves running the companies.  Add in the H1B indentured servitude software developers and you have bubble blowing stuff in spades. Imagine being able to reduce the cost of R&D in your high tech company by 50% and to lie about the books to boot.  We be blowin bubbles.

The "Dot.com" bubble notwistanding, the reality and the data show us that highly progressive income tax rates produce a healthy growing economy such as that of the mid 90's.  These data cannot be refuted.  The "supply side" wonks can only lie about reality and attempt to hide the history.

When rich people get a tax break they have more money to loan to the government.  The government, of course, will be borrowing lots of money to finance its operations because it gave the rich people a tax break to start with. End of story.

Ya see, kids....   If the rich people can foresee that the middle people will be getting more poor then there is no reason for them to "invest".  Why build a shoe factory when people can't afford shoes?  The only thing that a bond holder wants to here more than the music of a recession is the music of another depression. Why the hell would they want anything to change?  They are in the cat bird seat and they are perfectly happy for all to stay as it is.  Oops, I forgot.  That is what conservatism is. Scuse me :/

In 1911 the House of Representatives was enlarged to 425 members.  And now in 2008 the membership is still 425 members even though the number of voters doubled with women's suffrage and increased with the lowering of the voting age and has tripled on top of that due to the  increase in population. In 1911 the number of voters per representative was about 80 thousand (only the men over the age of 21 voted).  The number of people per representative is now seven hundred thousand and all of them over the age of 18 can vote.  That works to something like 525 thousand voters sharing one lousy representative.  Which is about one sixth of the power "we the people" had over our government in 1911.

It also means that it costs a lot of money to run for office and once there the incumbent is very difficult to get rid of. The Congress is Stagnant.

The problem has historically  been what James Madison spoke of in Federalist 10 where he was concerned with the size of the electoral districts being too small (the districts in England and in the colonies were then 5000 people and Madison was arguing for 30,000) as versus the problems of a "A Multitude" that would be created in the House as population increased. (at one for every 30 thousand as stated in the Constitution the House would have 10 thousand members). Winston Churchill remarked that "We form our buildings and then they form us".  There is no reason, of course, why additional representatives of the people that are not actually members of the committee structure of the House need to be hanging around inside the beltway where they are easy prey for the lobby and the other special interests.  The 22 Committees of the House are composed of 230 actual representatives.  The rest of the people just hang around collecting campaign funds from the lobby to insure their royal incumbency.  With well proven and readily available inexpensive technology, members not actually needed in the committees can be officed in the districts they represent where they are less accessible to the lobby and more accessible to the people they are actually supposed to be representing (and no -- I don't own any stock in any videoconferencing companies).

Anyone who has every tuned in to C-Span will note the emptiness of the House chamber.  There is a fellow at the podium "debating" a bill and the membership are in their offices watching and listening on a TV monitor just like you are at home.  Unlike you, the members have a copy of the bill and they got it off of their PC's in their offices which are connected to the central system where all the bills reside.  When it comes time to vote on the bill you will notice that the House Chamber remains quite empty.  There is simply no good reason for these representatives who are doing the  voting (your representatives) to be in Washington DC; not unless they have an appointment with a committee to present a bill for consideration.  Gee...  JUST EXACTLY AS IT IS DONE RIGHT NOW.

The objective of "extended representation" is to insure that the people get a reasonable chance at maintaining representatives that vote as the people would want as opposed to the way the lobby wants.  So how many representatives should there be that just vote and how many representatives should there be on the committees?  And how many need to be in Washington and how many can office next to the people they are supposed to represent?  The full membership decides who will make up the committees in any case.