Here’s one to listen to, Pye and me! Or is that Pye and I? It has been a while since Jason and I mixed it up, but this interview was well worth the wait. A little heat, a lot of heart and absolutely no bull.

Of course, Jason, as a Libertarian, voted for Bob Barr. Bob Barr, you know, the Libertarian Candidate for President. Bob Barr, the ex-Republican (ain’t we all!)!!! That made Jason’s choice easy, but in an effort to help all you out there that may be undecided (about what, I have no idea), I decided to ask Jason why he would not vote for McCain. One word: Iraq! Good word, simple and to the point.

Jason agrees that McCain is toast, too far behind to ever catch up. Palin is not qualified to be a V.P. nominee. Obama has a chance to take Georgia. The Democrats may reach that magic number of 60, but even if they get close, they will have 2 or 3 Republicans they can count on. Sounds depressing. Makes me wonder why Republicans would even show up to vote.

We avoided discussing the “Bradley Effect.”

We fell into the abyss when I asked why he wouldn’t vote for Obama. One word: Taxes! Jason is much too nice of a guy for me to jump on him in print, but we did get into it. Jason thinks Obama is going to “spread the wealth around,” which makes Jason very uncomfortable. If Jason were a Republican I could say that Bush has been spreading the wealth around (to Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.) pretty good himself, but that doesn’t work with a Libertarian. They don’t like Bush either!

I could say, we are in the process of spreading the debts (Wall Street’s) around, so why not the wealth, but Jason doesn’t like the baleout either.

So what does “spread the wealth” mean? I guess only time will tell, but let me tell you what I think it means. It is nothing sinister or socialistic. Hundreds of thousands of people work for hundreds of companies all across America. They are good employees. They work hard. In this day and age, they are thankful for their jobs. They can’t quit their jobs, at least, not for a better job. Let’s say they make more than minimum wage, $10 an hour or $20,000 a year. They have 2 or 3 kids and live in a rental apartment of house. After the subprime mortgage fiasco, they will never buy a house because they will never get approved for a mortgage, because they will never save the 20% downpayment. Now, as a society, we expect them to raise good kids, productive kids, educated kids. We expect them to be good parents and to spend quality time with their families so they don’t end in a divorce. They are living from pay check to paycheck. (PLEASE NOTE: I think they would be living from paycheck to paycheck if they may 2 or 3 times as much, which is what most of us do.) By the way, if this is not a fairly accurate depiction of American families (maybe even, too rosy), someone tell me, because this is what I see everyday as a lawyer.

Now this person, this family, is maxed out. Another bill, an unexpected illness, a tax increase is going to cost them a lot, maybe everything.

FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAID: I would guess no more than $1,500.00 a year.

And then there is the person that owns one of these companies. He is a good person, a good manager, comes to the office everyday and does his part to make the company successful. He lives well, his kids go to private school, he takes at least 2 weeks of vacation and flies across the country to resorts to show his wife and kids the good life. He has an IRA that he contributes to regularly. He has two houses. He is saving for college, the best college, for his kids. He invests conservatively in the stock market and every once in a while makes some money. His annual income is $500,000.00. Please note, this does not equal taxable income, which is generally lower.

FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAID: Let’s say $120,000.00.

Now, assume the government is $10 trillion in debt. (Contrary to popular disbelief, there is a rational basis for this assumption.)

Whose taxes should you raise? Whose minimum wage should be higher?

Can you solve the problem? How about it Jason? Love ya, man!