Observations

The torrent of information and knowledge that’s beamed at us by the media and over the Internet has also brought with it the curse of overload and misinformation.

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 which 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 $1.25 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 $3.1 trillion.  If we were to confiscate the entire wealth of America’s 400 richest citizens (278 of whom are billionaires), it would pay the cost of operating national the government for only about 147 days.

Extending the analysis a bit further, if the entire net worth of the two richest Americans, 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) The proposed 2009 federal budget is projected to have a deficit of $407 billion.  If we expropriate just enough money from the 400 richest Americans to cover the shortfall, it would be about one-third of their combined net worth.

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?  The Fortune 500 list of the most profitable businesses noted that the top 20 companies had combined net earnings (after taxes) of $266.21 billion. However, that’s only enough to run the federal government for about 26 days.  Even if we confiscated their total combined earnings, it would still only fund a little over 55% of the projected 2009 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) offers the following information (as of May 18, 2008):

1) Money Spent on the War on Drugs this year: Federal, $7.685 billion; State, $11.797 billion; Total, $19.483 billion.  “The U.S. federal government spent $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second.”

2) “Arrests for drug law violations in 2008 are expected to exceed the 1,889,810 arrests of 2006…Someone is arrested for violating a drug law every 17 seconds.”

3) “Police arrested an estimated 829,625 persons for cannabis violations in 2006, the highest annual total ever recorded in the United States, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

4) Since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year.  About 25 percent are sentenced for drug law violations.”

Why do we continue this War?  There must be a better way.

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right in the state.  Does that mean polygamy is or should also be a right?  Commenting in the Sacramento Bee, columnist Dan Walters noted, “…declaring that one is free to marry whomever one chooses makes it at least conceivable that plural marriages – polygamy – could be equally valid.”

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at “opinionfest.com.”