Rich and poor agree: Income tax unfair. Duh! A new Ipsos poll, clearly conducted to coincide with tax time, gives us this not-so-startling news. Here is an article about it:

http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060416/NEWS01/604160490/1001/news

Here is key text:

More than half of those who make less than $50,000 a year said it's unfair, and more than six in 10 of those who make more than $50,000 felt that way.

In fact, unhappiness with the tax system was spread fairly evenly across income groups, age groups and education levels.

This seems to somewhat contradict what the media was telling us five years ago, just before Bush's tax cuts were passed. We were told that polls indicated that a majority of people were opposed to tax relief. If this was true, I have to wonder what type of loaded questions were asked of the respondents. Anyway, here is the article's next paragraph:

A majority of people said the middle class, the self-employed and small businesses pay too much in taxes, the poll found. And they think those with high incomes and big businesses don't pay enough.

I knew that was coming! "Those with high incomes and big businesses don't pay enough." Are people aware of the percentages that people in those brackets have to pay in taxes? It amounts to a lot of money if you earn it! Of course, some people go through life envying people who have things that they don't, so they want the government to punish those people for daring to be well off. Those people need to think about what the world would be like without rich people or big businesses. Where would you get a job? Who would pay you your five-figure salary? Probably not a middle-class person, and certainly not a poor person. If the tax code continues to punish achievers, their incentive to achieve will be taken away, and that will hurt all of us.

Besides, raising taxes on the rich does not amount to the rest of us paying less in taxes. Also, even if the rich were taxed at 100%, it still would not pay for all of the spending that our government indulges in. And if anyone were taxed at 100%, why would they bother working ever again?

The top federal income tax rate is currently 35%. Imagine if you were taxed at that rate, in addition to all the other deductions that come out of your paycheck. Wouldn't that put a crimp in your lifestyle? If you envy the lifestyles of the wealthy, think of it this way: when rich people spend their money, we all benefit from it. Why? Because that pumps more money into our economy. More goods and services are sold, more profits are made, more jobs (and more taxpayers) are created -- and the money is generally put to better use in the private sector than it is by our wasteful government.

Iraq containment would have cost nearly as much as the war. The financial cost of the war in Iraq is going into hundreds of billions, and some even estimate that it could end up surpassing a trillion. To my mind, this puts the age-old theory that the Iraq war was just a "war for oil" to bed forever. The "war for oil" theory is a simple-minded one at best, and a colossally ignorant one at worst. If all America wanted from Iraq was oil, it would have been much cheaper to simply buy it. A number of countries (France, Germany, Russia, China) had cut billion-dollar oil deals with Saddam Hussein's regime -- which, I believe, is the reason those countries opposed the war. If all Saddam wanted for oil was a billion, or even several billion, it would have been much cheaper and easier for the U.S. to buy it from him than to invade and occupy his country. Besides, the price of oil has certainly not declined since Saddam was removed from power -- it has increased! As I write this, a barrel of oil is topping $70. This would certainly not be the case if the U.S. was raiding and plundering the oil supply of Iraq.

Although the monetary costs of the Iraq war and reconstruction may be astronomical, economists at the University Of Chicago estimate that the costs of continuing containment would have been nearly the same. And, in my view, there would have been far less to show for it.

Here is the report from Newsmax:

Amid estimates that the cost of the war in Iraq could run into the trillions, some economists say the real expense could be only slightly higher than what it would have cost to merely contain Iraq instead of invading.

A study by three economists at the University of Chicago's business school - Steven Davis, Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel - gives seven scenarios for the war, and the likeliest two indicate a final cost of between $410 billion and $630 billion.

But the economists also evaluate a range of possible outcomes if the U.S. had chosen the alternative to war.

They note that even before the 9/11 attacks, the United States had 28,000 troops in the region around Iraq, as well as about 30 ships and 200 aircraft enforcing no-fly zones. These forces alone were costing $11 billion to $18 billion a year, according to a report on the study in the influential publication The Economist.

The economists estimate that, without an invasion, there was a 3 percent chance each year that the rule of Saddam Hussein or his sons would collapse.

"Given what America was spending on Iraq, the authors reckon, it would have cost at least $200 billion, in present value terms, to keep containing it until it no longer posed a threat," The Economist reports.

Furthermore, containment would have involved a few contingencies, such as the periodic need for a show of force.

The University of Chicago economists figure that there would have been a 10 percent chance every year of having to send troops to the region again to keep Saddam under control.
Under these assumptions, they "estimate that the expected cost of containment would have been around $400 billion, only a little less than the $410 billion that they now expect the war to cost," according to The Economist.

Predictions of the war's cost by the Bush administration have proved too low. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited a figure of $50 billion to $60 billion, and Bush's top economic adviser Larry Lindsey put the figure at $100 billion to $200 billion.

Now an estimate by Linda Bilmes of Harvard University and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University put the cost at an astronomical $2.24 trillion through 2015.

But The Economist points out that the Bilmes-Stiglitz estimate takes into account higher oil prices, which are only slightly dictated by the war in Iraq, and interest payments on U.S. spending in Iraq. It also includes $3 billion annually to be spent on veterans' care over the next 20 to 40 years.

A third study by Scott Wallsten and Katrina Kosec for the AEI-Brookings Joint Centre predicts that the war will eventually cost America from $540 billion to $670 billion.

Happy Easter! I hope that you and your families enjoy this blessed holiday.

Today, in his first Easter mass as pontiff, Pope Benedict called on Catholics to "transform a world of violence and corruption". The longer I live, the more I understand how the teachings of Christ are the way to a better world. Christianity has always been considered "out of fashion", but it is still going strong after 2,000 years, while fads and fashions have come and gone. Christianity must, and will, remain strong despite the many attacks against it.

You've probably heard news stories about the so-called "Gospel of Judas", and you've definitely heard of the Da Vinci Code. The willingness of some people to believe in such outlandish conspiracy theories will never cease to amaze me. For now, I'll refer you to this article about the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks about these matters.

Top al Qaeda militant is killed in Pakistan. Good news in the war on terror: Mohsin Musa Matawalli Atwah, one of the terror network's top bombmakers, was killed in an airstrike along with 13 other suspected militants. Here is the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12295616

I like the sound of this:

The two Pakistani security officials, based in the capital, Islamabad, told the AP that Wednesday’s operation targeted Atwah and another al-Qaida militant, identified as Abdul Rahman al-Masri, another bomb-making expert.

But a third official, who also declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, told the AP that it was likely that Abdul Rahman was one of the aliases used by Atwah. The FBI Web site also says one of Atwah’s aliases is Abdul Rahman.

So, we may have killed two targets by hitting one? Let's hope so.

Ann Coulter strikes again! Godless: The Church of Liberalism is the name of her new book, in which she criticizes the libs' war on religion -- and on God. Instead of listing it under its title, Amazon.com is simply listing it as The New Ann Coulter. I smell controversy! To make her point even stronger, the book is going to be released on June 6th, which some people are placing a 6/06/06 significance upon.

The book is reportedly going to have a first printing of 500,000 copies, and Coulter is reportedly receiving the biggest advance ever for a conservative writer. You go, girl!