It’s true that we live in frightening times. The last time I saw this much fear was when the Gates Commission delivered that income tax report to legislative Democrats.

Look, I realize that it would be a tough battle to persuade Washingtonians that most of them would be better off with a flat income tax, the elimination of the state property tax and a cut in the sales tax. But it’s the truth. It would really help the border counties, which, according to the report, could increase sales and revenue significantly if they weren’t saddled with such a high sales tax. Plus, we could rid ourselves of that embarrassing title of taxing the poor more than any other state.

Sadly, Democrats put self-preservation above principles. It would be like Republicans gaining total control of the state and not lifting a finger to help businesses or limit abortions.

Back in the U.S.S.R. What I learned about income taxes from the Joe the Plumber episode: There’s a tiny difference between socialism and capitalism.

If Barack Obama gets his way, the top rate for those making $250,000 or more will return to where it was when President Clinton left office. In other words: 35 percent (the current rate) is capitalism; 39.6 percent is socialism.

If that’s true, then for much of the 20th century we were a socialist nation, even under Republican presidents. Let’s take a look back, comrades:

In 1945, the top income tax rate was 94 percent. In 1955, it was 91 percent. In 1965, 70 percent. In 1975, still 70 percent. In 1985, 50 percent. In 1995, 39.6 percent. In 2005, 35 percent.

Who knew capitalism was so new, or that we had a long tradition of spreading the wealth around?

The lost world. The recent death of author Michael Crichton reminded me of how desperate the global warming denials had become.

After the publication of “The State of Fear,” a work of fiction that challenges the accepted wisdom on global warming, a petroleum geologists’ group awarded him its journalist-of-the-year award.

Did they think “Jurassic Park” was true, too?

Family values. If you’re listening to a local TV morning show and the anchor appears to have encountered the words “Rahm Emanuel” for the first time, it’s a good idea to change the channel.

Anyway, before accepting the job as Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Emanuel was said to be concerned about time away from his young children. We always hear of people getting dumped from jobs wanting to “spend more time with their family.” Just once, I’d like to see the logical precursor to that:

“The Obama transition team announced today that Rahm Emanuel will be spending less time with his family.”