Do you think it is more important to have a tax policy that raises the most revenue at the least cost, in order to maximize job growth and economic opportunity -  or to have a tax policy like the Buffett rule, which falsely claims it would make all millionaires pay a higher tax rate than their secretaries?  President Obama released his tax return last week, showing he had an effective rate of a little more than 20 percent of his income, even though he is rich by his own definition. One of major ways the Obamas were able to reduce their tax rate was by giving away 22 percent of their income to charity, which I applaud. But their actions raise several interesting points. When we donate money to a charity, church or some other worthy cause, we are allowed a tax deduction, which means the government gets less of our money. The president and many in his party keep telling us that the government needs more money, but if they believe this, why are they taking charitable deductions? Why didn't they give it to the IRS which they say needs it so much?

Who is Hilary Rosen?  Prominent Democrats pretend they don't know.  "I know three, personally, women named Hilary Rosen," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. When Ms. Rosen declared on CNN last Wednesday (4/11) that Mitt Romney's wife, Ann, "has never actually worked a day in her life," she was doing what Democrats customarily do -- turning every issue into a personal attack on Republicans.  Her sudden unperson status illustrates the enormous potential for blowback. "Counterpunching is the art of making him miss, then making him pay," is how boxing trainers define it. "A good counterpuncher will hit without being hit. But just as importantly, he can make the opponent so scared to throw a punch that his offense dissolves away, leaving him gun-shy and helpless." Republicans have enjoyed watching Democrats run like scalded dogs from Hilary Rosen.  More heartening for them is how quickly and effectively the Romney campaign responded.

As I unquestionably make the best piña colada in the known universe, I am compelled to start the HFR with the thrilling medical news released Wednesday (4/11) that Drinking Alcohol May Significantly Enhance Problem Solving Skills.  Researchers at the University of Illinois demonstrated that two pints of beer or two glasses of wine enable guys to think more creatively and solve brain teasers more quickly.  Since my piña colada , in addition to a fully sufficient quantity of rum, contains Durk Pearson's brain nutrition formula, it's got to do better than a couple of brewskis.  Too bad it's so early in the day.  The sun won't be over the yardarm for hours. ************ From Norkland, comes what is surely the week's most hilarious news.  It can be lethal to embarrass and humiliate a god - or someone who believes he should be worshipped as a god.  A 28 year-old kid who's trying to step into his grandfather's and father's megalomaniacal shoes and establish his own godlike personality cult now has the whole world laughing at him. ************ Speaking of embarrassment... the world's biggest scandal is currently engulfing Norkland's giant neighbor, China.  There are hundreds of millions of Chinese, inside China and overseas, transfixed by it, with literally thousands of websites and blogs commenting daily - for the story is like a script from a Hollywood blockbuster movie.

George Zimmerman was indicted yesterday (4/11) for second degree murder for shooting black teenager Trayvon Martin. Our legal system has a presumption of innocence.  But the news media already have found Mr. Zimmerman guilty of a hate crime.  Can an impartial jury be impaneled?   The producer who edited a 911 tape to make it seem Mr. Zimmerman pursued Mr. Martin because he was black made an "innocent mistake," NBC said.   What Mr. Zimmerman said was:  "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or on drugs or something.  It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."  Then the 911 dispatcher asked: "OK, is this guy, is he white, black or Hispanic?"   "He looks black," Mr. Zimmerman responded.   You can't edit that to: "This guy looks like he's up to no good... he looks black," without intending to deceive.

Mitt Romney is boring.  That's partly why he's had trouble nailing down the Republican nomination for president.  But it's likely to be an advantage in the general election. In his private life, Gov. Romney is an Eagle Scout. That's a welcome change from what we've become accustomed to from politicians, but is neither colorful nor exciting.  And though Mr. Romney isn't a bad speaker, his campaign rhetoric is neither motivating nor inspiring.  He qualifies too carefully what he says, and leans overmuch on clichés.  When he ran for office in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney, understandably, took positions to the left of most Republicans, so many think him a squish.  He's shifted some views dramatically since, causing others to see him as a flip flopper. So he's had trouble closing the deal against deeply flawed, dramatically underfunded opponents. But once this dispiriting primary season ends, what have been liabilities for Mr. Romney will morph into assets.  Here's why.

Americans, now 236 years removed from the Declaration of Independence, have acquiesced to far more tax tyranny -- and I do not use that word lightly -- than the British tax tyranny that ignited our revolt. Modern-day apologists for the progressive income tax argue that it is just - because it is imposed by the "consent of the governed" -- and that is merely their first lie. America was established as a constitutional republic to protect despised minorities from the tyranny of the democratically elected majority. Democracy and consent of the governed are distinctly different concepts. Once it becomes acceptable to divide a population into classes, majorities can easily take the right of consent from a minority. A progressive income tax only meets the test of "consent of the governed" when a majority of each class of taxpayers consents to its tax rate. Otherwise, it is tax tyranny of a low-tax-rate majority against a vote-poor, high-tax-rate minority. The apologists for the progressive income tax claim it is only "fair," ignoring the fact there is nothing at all "fair" about taxing at a higher tax rate those who work longer and harder and/or spend more time acquiring an education and work skills. It is destructive and tyrannical for a society to tax the most productive, innovative and job-creating people at a higher rate than others.