Larry Jaques wrote:

Uh, Jim. I wasn't standing up for Wally World. I was ranting
about our government chasing the wrong bad guys. Crikey, they
need to find at least SOME sense of what our priorities are.

So we should just forget about enforcing any laws other than the
handful that address the most urgent issues? Are you contending that
people (and companies) should be allowed to break laws with impunity
as long as they aren't breaking high-priority laws?

new rant

If we stopped the wars against drugs and oil countries, if we
stopped the congressional looting, if we stopped funding the
innumerable pork projects, our government would have all the
money it needed to meet SS payments.

Yep.

If the IRS stopped spending $10k to go after the little guy
who owed them $32.12 and started after corporations who each
owed them millions, or plugged the loopholes...

Do you actually know of any cases where the IRS spent $10K to go after
someone who owed them $32.12? It is my understanding (and I could be
wrong) that you have to owe more than some threshold amount (the
actual amount being a closely guarded secret) before the IRS will even
think about coming after you. And even then, I doubt they would spend
$10K unless it was a complex case with big bucks involved. Not that
I'm trying to defend the IRS. Certainly they have had (and probably
still have) some serious problems with the way they do their job. I'm
just not sure that what you described actually happens.

Incidentally, it's up to Congress, not the IRS, to plug the loopholes.

If we stopped coddling the AMA to focus on preventive medicine...

Not exactly sure what you're talking about here...

If the gov't stopped funding elections and used public pots
(donations anonymous) which were distributed evenly to each
eligible delegate...

By "funding elections" are you referring to paying for the logistics
of elections (printing the ballots, setting up polling places, etc.),
or are you talking about the Presidential Election Campaign Fund? If
it's the latter, why do you think "distributing evenly" would be
better than distributing based on the existing matching funds concept?

Bert