Random Observations: Budgets, Taxes And More
By Harris Sherline
April 13, 2009
The miracle of information and knowledge that's available through modern media and the Internet has also brought with it the curse of overload and misinformation.
The plethora of commercials that push cleaning agents imply that we are all at risk of being infected by some awful disease if we don't use their products. But, if that were true, how is it that man has survived all these years without them? Can it be that we really don't need the cleansers that kill 98.5% of all the germs on the surfaces they are used to clean?
Pharmaceutical manufacturers push prescription drugs as if they are selling health foods. Buy their products and avoid the terrible consequences of just about every disease or ailment known to man, most of which we never knew existed.
If taxing the rich is the way to provide benefits for the poor and low income workers, why don't we simply confiscate the assets of the wealthiest among us, say just the billionaires. After all, they really don't need to live such opulent lifestyles, with private jets, mansions, yachts, etc. If you think that's a good idea, consider this: According to Forbes magazine, the 400 Richest Americans have a combined net worth of around $1.57 trillion. So, how effective would it be if their "excess" net worth were taken for the good of society? A little simple math gives us a clue:
1) The proposed U.S. federal budget for the 2009 fiscal year is about $3.5 trillion. If we were to confiscate the entire wealth of America's 400 richest citizens, all of whom are billionaires, it would pay the cost of operating the national the government for only about 164 days.
Extending the analysis a bit further, if the entire net worth of the two richest Americans (before the market crashed), Bill Gates at $48 billion and Warren Buffett at $41 billion, were confiscated, it would only pay the cost of running the government for a little over 10 days.
2) Obama's proposed 2010 federal budget has a projected deficit of $1.75 trillion. If the entire net worth of the 400 richest Americans were expropriated, it would not cover the shortfall.
3) Instead of confiscating the net worth of America's richest citizens, how about taking the earnings of some of the nation's most profitable companies to fund the government or to cover the budget deficit? Fortune Magazine's top 500 companies had combined 2008 earnings (after taxes) of about $839 billion. If we confiscated their total earnings, it would only cover the federal 2009 budget for about 100 days or fund a little over 53% of the projected 2010 budget deficit.
Why is it that since President Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964, the federal government has spent between eight and ten trillion dollars on the effort to eradicate poverty, but the number of Americans who are considered poor is still approximately the same as it was over 40 years ago?
Has the War on Drugs been successful? The Drug War Clock (www.drugsense.org) offered the following information (as of April 10, 2009):
>> Continued -- Page 1 2
| 
