Here?s a letter to the Washington Post:

Arguing that the U.S. Constitution is simply a ?collection of shrewd political compromises,? E.J. Dionne ridicules persons who demand strict adherence to its text (?What a GOP Congress might bring,? Jan. 3).

If being a collection of shrewd political compromises justifies a document?s text being interpreted loosely, why stop with the Constitution?  Extend this principle to all legislation.  And let?s begin with history?s greatest collection of shrewd political compromises, the U.S. tax code.

Interpreting that code as a living document, it strikes me that the word ?income? is best read as ?bunny rabbits.?  I will remit to Uncle Sam approximately 25 percent of all bunny rabbits that I acquire this year.  And I will cite Mr. Dionne to defend my interpretation against persons who are so dull-witted as to insist on a wooden, literal interpretation of ?income.?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Here?s a letter to the programming director at MSNBC:

You feature a Reuters?s story reporting that ?Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday?.  Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed.  The next most popular way ? chosen by 20 percent ? was to cut defense spending (?Poll: Tax the rich to balance the budge,? Jan. 3)

In other words, most Americans want lots of government if other Americans pay for it.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Another possibility, of course, is that this poll was conducted in a biased way.