For someone who voted for Perot, you seem to be pretty interventionist, Roger. I agree that smaller houses would save materials. That would help preserve planet Earth. But the tax idea sounds like it would only be practible or desirable only in certain areas, mainly on the coasts, where the housing costs are exorbitant.

7 years ago, our friends bought a 1,200 foot house that was built in Venice Calif. for $180,000. It is now worth over $350,000. Kathy's brother just bought a new 1,200 foot house in Sacramento for $120,000. We have a 2,400 foot house in Ohio that is still cheaper than that, and it's been 3 1/2 years since we bought it. Where we live, you can buy a decent house for $50,000.

I've read that companies, realizing that their workers cannot afford housing in Calif. are relocating to places like the midwest. Housing pricing in Calif., as I understand it, are beginning to drop a bit. The law of the market place is beginning to work, sort of (even if a $350,000 house drops 20% in value, it's still $280,000, too rich for my blood).

I think the gov't should, through subsidies, tax breaks, whatever, promote affordable housing. It's in our country's best interest. Penalizing large houses is a mistake, I think, if you want to help the homeless. Helping the planet . . . well, that's another issue.