THE LATEST ON WHO PAYS WHAT

Well, it's time to put a stop to the whining about income inequality and those big huge tax breaks the evil rich have received from George Bush. The Treasury Department is about to release the numbers for 2004, and as usual the highest achievers are taking it on the chin.

The Democrats, with no small amount of help from Republicans, are making headway on their goal of shifting the entire federal tax burden in this country onto a minority of income earners. In 2004 the bottom one-half of income earners paid only 3.3% of all federal income taxes. That's down from the Clinton years. In fact, that's the lowest share paid by the bottom half ever.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the majority of American families with incomes less than $40,000 pay no income taxes at all! When you factor in the welfare program known as the Earned Income Tax Credit, many of these families are coming close to getting a completely free ride!

OK ... but what about the evil rich?

In 2004 the top 1% of all income earners earned about 19% of all income. So ... the rich really are benefiting from Bush's tax policies, aren't they? Just 1% earning 19% of all income? Sorry to burst your bubble, but that figure was higher in the Clinton years. During the time Clinton was in office this figure went from 13.8% to nearly 21%. Funny how you didn't read a lot of newspaper stories during the Clinton years about growing income inequality, isn't it? Now, under bush, the share of total income earned by the wicked rich has fallen!

But what about the income taxes! Surely George Bush has all but wiped out income taxes for the nasty rich, hasn't he?

Nope.

In 2004 the top 1% of income earners -- that crowd that earned 19% of all income -- paid 36.9% of all income taxes. The top 5% of income earners paid a whopping 57.1% of all income taxes. That's an increase under Bush. So much for "tax cuts for the rich."

OK .. well how about the super-rich? What about the top one-tenth of one percent of income earners? Lordy, I don't even know how much you have to earn to be in this crowd. From 2002 to 2004, with the hated Bush tax cuts firmly in place, the top 0.1% of income earners saw their share of total income taxes paid go from 15.4% to 17.4%. That's up a full 2% for those of you who went to government schools.

OK ... that's income taxes. But what about capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends? Bush cut those taxes too, didn't he? That's where the rich are making out like bandits, right? Well ... glad you asked. Since Bush's tax cuts the Imperial Federal Government has seen an increase of 79% in capital gains taxes, and 35% for taxes on dividends.

Just remember these figures the next time you see some Democrat whining about income inequality and the need to redistribute income. It looks like we're doing quite a bit of redistribution as it is.

PROSECUTORS GET TOUGH ON STEWART SENTENCING

The AP reports on a brief submitted by prosecutors arguing for a long prison sentence for convicted terrorist enabler Lynne Stewart. They dismiss defense claims that Stewart mistakenly crossed the line from zealous defender to an unwitting accomplice who deserves no jail time for her error:

Stewart's "egregious, flagrant abuse of her profession, abuse that amounted to material support to a terrorist group, deserves to be severely punished," prosecutors wrote in a document submitted Thursday to a judge.

Her lawyers have argued that Stewart should receive no prison time, arguing that a harsh sentence would frighten other lawyers from representing notorious clients and that Stewart's three decades of distinguished work for indigent clients should speak louder than a single serious mistake.

The prosecutors see it differently.

"Stewart did not walk a fine line of zealous advocacy and accidentally fall over it; she marched across it and into a criminal conspiracy," Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Dember wrote. "The government obviously did not prosecute Stewart because she is a zealous advocate, but rather for blatantly and repeatedly violating the law."

Dember wrote that Stewart's "conduct was not isolated to one single event; rather, it showed a pattern of purposeful and willful conduct, in which she played a central role in repeated fraudulent attempts to pass messages to and from Abdel-Rahman."

The prosecution notes that Stewart lied to investigators on at least two occasions. She told them that Sheok Abdel Rahman's prison allowed him to issue press releases as a cover for her own statements on his behalf when she had known it to be forbidden. Stewart also denied knowing a figure of international terrorism when questioned, and then reversed herself when under oath. Both incidents show that Stewart knowingly violated the law on behalf of the spiritual leader of the Islamist cell that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.

Prosecutors seek a 30-year sentence for Stewart's crimes. At 65, that would be a life sentence, especially since convicts of federal crimes must serve 85% of their sentences before parole eligibility. Given that her crime allowed Rahman's rescission of a cease-fire to get transmitted to his operatives abroad in 2000, which then resulted in terror attacks that cost others' lives, it seems a fitting end for Stewart and her cohorts. Her sentencing hearing comes next month -- twenty months after her conviction. (via The Corner)