In 2006, the top 1% of all American taxpayers had gross incomes of $388,800 or more. And the taxes they paid to the Internal Revenue Service amounted to almost 40% of the total amount of taxes that was paid by all taxpayers.

     In contrast, 50% of Americans with incomes under $32,000--while certainly more numerous than those at the top--accounted for slightly less than 3% of the total amount collected.

     For the wealthiest taxpayers, it was the largest share of taxes paid by the top 1% since 1986, the Joint Economic Committee said in a press release earlier this week.

     Taxpayers in the top 5%--those with adjusted gross incomes of at least $153,500--accounted for about 60% of the total tax collection.

     The committee's press release confirmed what is common wisdom; namely, that wealthy people do pay the lion's share of federal taxes, while the share paid by the unwealthy keeps dropping lower.

     The Joint Economic Committee is a curious congressional invention, consisting of 10 senators and 10 representatives with a chairmanship that rotates between the two legislative chambers. Its current chairman is Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). But its Republican members, particularly Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.), occasionally use the committee as a vehicle for churning out reports that undergird the party's economic philosophy or to inject a dose of statistical realism into a political debate.

     This week's report was no different, but neither the study nor Rep. Saxton's comments about it contained any reference to the federal tax debate that's has been occurring between Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) over who should be taxed and, more importantly, what percentage of the government's cost they should pay.

     "In examining recent trends in the income share of the top 1%, what is most striking is its sharp rise during the 1990s," Sexton said in the committee's press release. "For example, between 1992 and 2000, the top 1%'s share of income jumped from 14.23% to 20.81%, and increase of nearly 7% before slipping in 2001 and 2002. These data show that the most significant increases in this income share occurred in the 1990s, not in more recent years."

     Saxton's interpretative comments drew a comparison between the tax policies of the Clinton Administration (1991-2000) and the Bush Administration's opening years when tax cutting legislation was enacted. Now, with those tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2008, they have become part of the presidential election debate, and the source of some political embarrassment for Sen. McCain who opposed their enactment but now supports their extension.

     From the Joint Economic Committee: 

While not specifically pursuing any legislation at this time, Senator Webb pointed out that "despite the number of people we have arrested, the illegal drug industry and the flow of drugs to our citizens remain undiminished."

In his book A Time to Fight, Webb writes more directly that "drug addiction is not in and of itself a criminal act. It is a medical condition, indeed a disease, just as alcoholism is, and we don't lock people up for being alcoholics."

A refreshing position coming from the nation's capital. Certainly, taxpayers would save money in court, social welfare and healthcare costs (to name a few) if we worked on treating those that are addicted instead of locking them up for a period of time. Of course, many critics label the senator as "soft on crime."

No Republicans attended the meeting due to the political stalemate over crime policy.

Read More from The Daily Press: Webb urges fresh look at the war on drugs

Technorati Tags: Senator Jim Webb, war on drugs, hearing, addiction, prison, incarceration, Joint Economic Committee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX9Uei89TuE&NR=1

"How can you pursue this policy without further weakening the dollar?"-Ron Paul

This is priceless. Look at Bernanke at the end of this video he doesn't know what to say. Bernanke is a puppet of congress and he just proved it by stating in the video that we at the federal reserve follow congress's orders. Come on man do something different. Wow.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb is often mentioned as a running mate for Senator Barack Obama. Webb, 62, is a former Marine, won the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts for actions as a platoon commander during the Vietnam War. Under President Regan, Webb served as Assistant Secretary of Defense and later as Secretary of the Navy.

Webb, who was a Republican until recently, was a strong critic of the Iraq War from the beginning and publicly voiced his opinion in numerous op-eds. In 2006, Webb was recruited to run against incumbent Virginia Senator Georgle Allen (R), who was viewed as a shoe-in for reelection. Allen's lock on reelection ended when he called a Webb volunteer of Indian descent who was tasked with recording Allen's public appearances, "macaca" at a campaign rally. The incident opened up numerous stories about Allen's racist tendencies and in November of 2006, Webb narrowly defeated Allen.

During his campaign, Webb wore his son Jimmy's old combat boots out of tribute to him (Jimmy Webb, a US Marine, is an Iraq War veteran). While the move was viewed by some as a publicity stunt, it served as a reminder to voters that Webb had family in harm's way.

A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Joint Economic Committee, Webb has an enormous amount of foreign policy and national security experience, which is something that Senator Obama lacks.

While on paper, Webb looks to be the ideal VP candidate, especially for Barack Obama, there are some concerns. Senator Webb has been a member of the Senate for almost eighteen months and could be painted as inexperienced on domestic issues. Additionally, he is not afraid to speak his mind on the campaign trail and can come across as angry when answering a question. Webb's campaigning ability would be best described as less than ideal. Additionally, Webb is in his third marriage, which might not sit well with socially conservative swing voters.

Despite his drawbacks, the idea of Senator Webb being the running mate for the Democratic nominee, is one that is being given serious consideration. His national security experience alone would be able to help counter that of presumptive GOP Presidential nominee John McCain.

Hearing Ron Paul carve up Bernake never gets old:

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Wednesday the economy may shrink over the first half of this year and that "a recession is possible." Yet, he didn't offer any assurances of further interest rate cuts.

Bernanke's testimony to the Joint Economic Committee was a much more pessimistic assessment of the economy's immediate prospects amid a trio of crises — housing, credit and financial.

"It now appears likely that gross domestic product (GDP) will not grow much, if at all, over the first half of 2008 and could even contract slightly," Bernanke told lawmakers. GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States and is the best barometer of the United States' economic health. Under one rule, six straight months of declining GDP, would constitute a recession.

Still, Bernanke said that he expects more economic growth in the second half of this year and into 2009, helped by the government's $168 billion stimulus package of tax rebates for people and tax breaks for businesses as well as the Fed's aggressive reductions to a key interest rate. Nevertheless, the chairman acknowledged uncertainty about the Fed's next steps, notwithstanding the mounting economic woes.

 Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_bi_ge/
bernanke_congress;_ylt=Al0d0o
x8ZL_k__msZcFHZYas0NUE

Ma sei i benefici attesi in Iraq non ci sono stati, quanto è costata, allora, la guerra? Una prima stima, anche questa volta ottimista per Bush, è stata proposta da un comitato tecnico del Congresso, il Joint Economic Committee: alla fine dell’anno fiscale 2007, la cifra era stata di 413 miliardi di dollari. A seconda di quanto tempo le truppe resteranno, la cifra prevista per Afganistan e Iraq, da oggi al 2017, oscillerà fra i 570 miliardi e i 1.055. Ma se si computano gli interessi sui pagamenti sul debito schizzato a causa del conflitto, la cifra complessiva attualizzata sarà di circa 2.000 miliardi.

Ma la stima più precisa l’ha appena fatta il premio Nobel per l’economia Joseph Stiglitz, in un libro scritto con Linda Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War. Stiglitz enumera una serie infinita di dati che sfuggono all’opinione pubblica. Come l’aumento delle indennità per i reduci e i feriti di guerra e gli assegni per le vedove; internalizza il costo sociale non pagato dal governo come la perdita di produttività dovuta al consumo di capitale umano, che fuori dal linguaggio dell’economia sarebbe la morte della gente(!). In fine aggiunge i costi macroeconomici derivanti dai prezzi più alti del petrolio e l’aumento degli interessi. Il libro non copre il computo secondo il costo-opportunità dei capitali, ovvero non ci dice quanto si sarebbe guadagnato di più se quelle cifre, invece di essere investite in bombe e missili, fossero state devolute, per esempio, all’assistenza medica universale.

Beh, la cifra complessiva ammonta a tre trilioni di dollari.

Ma visto che qualche conservatore potrebbe sostenere che ci siano stati vantaggi maggiori, vi forniamo gli unici dati relativi ai benefici generati. Scott Wallsten e Katrina Kosec, in uno studio condotto per l’American Enterprise Institute e la Brookings Institution, hanno calcolato i benefici nei termini della riduzione dei costi legati alle sanzioni Onu, quelle commerciali e alle no-fly zones; visto che per ora l’abbassamento del costo del petrolio proposto da Rumsfeld non c’è stato. I benefici ammontano a 116 miliardi di dollari. Un po’ poco per giustificare questo patatrac. E, dato che per tutto il resto, alla Casa Bianca, non hanno la mastercard, bisogna solo sperare che il prossimo presidente raggiunga la pace nel minor tempo possibile; e, anche, nel modo più economico.

Alessio Postiglione

(pubblicato su Notizie Verdi del 23/04/08)

Social Bookmarks: