Relative tax burdens of the individual states

This map shows the relative tax burdens of the individual states as measured by the return they get on every dollar they pay in federal tax. For instance, New Jersey gets $0.57 in federal money for every dollar in federal tax it pays. Similarly California, the worlds 5th largest economy, gets $0.78 in federal funding for every federal tax dollar it pays. Poverty-stricken red states then soak up the blue state surplus with states like Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama getting between $1.50 and $2.00 back for every dollar they pay. These states actually make money off of federal taxes! Why do they send tax cutters to congress?




(http://www.giveupblog.com)

Federal Spending in Each State Per Dollar of Federal Taxes

Federal Spending in Each State Per Dollar of Federal Taxes
FY 2004
State	Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes	Rank
New Mexico	$2.00	1
Alaska	$1.87	2
West Virginia	$1.83	3
Mississippi	$1.77	4
North Dakota	$1.73	5
Alabama	$1.71	6
Virginia	$1.66	7
Hawaii	$1.60	8
Montana	$1.58	9
South Dakota	$1.49	10
Oklahoma	$1.48	11
Arkansas	$1.47	12
Louisiana	$1.45	13
Kentucky	$1.45	14
Maryland	$1.44	15
Maine	$1.40	16
South Carolina	$1.38	17
Tennessee	$1.30	18
Arizona	$1.30	19
Missouri	$1.29	20
Idaho	$1.28	21
Utah	$1.14	22
Kansas	$1.12	23
Vermont	$1.12	24
Iowa	$1.11	25
Wyoming	$1.11	26
North Carolina	$1.10	27
Nebraska	$1.07	28
Pennsylvania	$1.06	29
Florida	$1.02	30
Rhode Island	$1.02	31
Ohio	$1.01	32
Indiana	$0.97	33
Oregon	$0.97	34
Georgia	$0.96	35
Texas	$0.94	36
Washington	$0.88	37
Michigan	$0.85	38
Wisconsin	$0.82	39
Delaware	$0.79	40
Colorado	$0.79	41
New York	$0.79	42
California	$0.79	43
Massachusetts	$0.77	44
Nevada	$0.73	45
Illinois	$0.73	46
Minnesota	$0.69	47
New Hampshire	$0.67	48
Connecticut	$0.66	49
New Jersey	$0.55	50
District of Columbia	$6.64	na
Source: Tax Foundation, Census Bureau.

Pak pips India in arms-deal race

2 Oct 2007, 0000 hrs IST,Chidanand Rajghatta & Rajat Pandit,TNN

WASHINGTON/NEW DELHI: Pakistan, a country about a sixth of India in size, population, economy and several other metrics, has for the first time outstripped India in purchasing military hardware and software, notching up arms deals worth $5.1 billion in 2006, as compared to $3.5 billion by India, to be ranked the world’s largest arms shopper, according to a Congressional study released Monday.

According to the report, ‘Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations’, produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Pakistan concluded $5.1 billion in agreements to buy arms in 2006, well ahead of second placed India with $3.5 billion in agreements and third placed Saudi Arabia with $3.2 billion, in the developing world. Venezuela ($3.1 billion), Algeria and Israel ($2.1 billion each), and Brazil ($1.1 billion) were the other leading arms purchasers.

India, however, figures right at the top if the 1999-2006 timeframe is taken, with agreements worth a whopping $ 22.40 billion. In this timeframe, China ranks second ($17.40 billion), followed by Saudi Arabia ($16.40 billion) and Egypt ($13.30 billion), with Pakistan coming seventh with $10.90 billion.

As reported by TOI earlier, India has topped the list in both 2004 and 2005, with agreements worth $5.7 billion and $5.4 billion, respectively, even overtaking China for the first time.

But while India still continues to spend just about 2.5% of its GDP on defence, a trend witnessed since 1991-92 despite the armed forces consistently demanding it be raised to at least 3%, the figures for Pakistan and China hover around 4.5% of their GDPs.

Pakistan, of course, has gained ground in recent years, taking full advantage of the US quid pro quo for its support in the so-called war on terrorism in Afghanistan.

The study also shows that Pakistan, viewed in many quarters as the most dangerous country on earth and a terrorist swamp, received top of the line armaments which seem to have little relevance in the war on terror. Instead, critics say Washington appears to be arming an unstable Pakistan to the teeth amid prospects of it going even more extremist. US sales to Pakistan in 2006 included the $1.4 billion purchase of 36 new F-16C/D fighter aircraft and $640 million in missiles and bombs. The deal included a package for $890 million in upgrades for Pakistan’s older versions of the F-16.

The two main armament suppliers to Pakistan are, of course, the US and China, while it’s Russia, Israel and France for India.

The United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006, followed by Russia and Britain, according to the study. In 2006, the United States agreed to sell $10.3 billion in weapons to the developing world, or 35.8% of these deals worldwide, according to the study. Russia was second with $8.1 billion, or 28.1%, and Britain was third with $3.1 billion, or 10.8%.

Overall, weapons sales to developing countries in 2006 reached $ 28.8 billion, a modest drop from the 2005 figure of $31.8 billion. The combined value of arms sales worldwide to both developed and developing nations in 2006 reached $40.3 billion, a decline of nearly 13% from 2005. When combining totals for arms sales to developed and developing nations, the ranking of world arms sellers remained the same. The United States led with $16.9 billion, followed by Russia with $8.7 billion and Britain with $3.1 billion.

The 2006 sales figures for all three nations were higher than their totals in 2005. While commentaries accompanying the study focused on Russia’s arms supply to Iran, Venezuela and other countries Washington considers inimical, there was little by way of analysis of US sales to unstable Pakistan, where the army has long been accused of supporting Taliban and other extremist elements.

(http://www.timesofindia.com)

Author: Letting kids drink early reduces binging

updated 12:58 p.m. EDT, Fri September 28, 2007

By Jennifer Pifer
CNN

• Story Highlights
• Author: Forbidding kids from drinking creates temptation
• Instead, he says, parents should teach kids how to drink responsibly
• "Preparing your child to drink at home lessens the likelihood" of binging, he says
• Critic says giving kids permission to do potentially harmful things is "ridiculous"
  
  

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Over dinner recently, Anna Peele recalls one of the first times she drank alcohol. "I was like 14 or 15," Peele says. "I ordered a beer and they served me."

She had just finished her freshman year of high school and was traveling in Greece with family friends. "We would just have wine with dinner," Peele says. "In Greece it's so not a big deal."

Anna Peele's parents allowed her to drink at family functions and social events when she was in high school.

While that experience would cause some American parents to worry, Peele's parents weren't upset.

In fact, starting in middle school, her parents allowed her and her siblings to have an occasional sip of beer or wine. By the time she was in high school, Peele was drinking beer and wine regularly at family functions and social events. But it was always in moderation, Peele says. She says her parents' attitude toward alcohol made it seem less mysterious. "It wasn't some forbidden fruit," Peele says. "I didn't have to go out to a field with my friends and have 18 beers."

Experts say binge drinking continues to be a growing problem across the country. According to a recent report from the U.S. surgeon general, there are nearly 11 million underage drinkers in the United States. Nearly 7.2 million are considered binge drinkers, meaning they drank more than five drinks in one sitting.

In this age of "just say no," some people believe it is time for Americans to reconsider how they teach kids about alcohol. Peele's father is at the top of the list.

"We taught them to drink in a civilized fashion, like a civilized human being," says Stanton Peele, psychologist and author of "Addiction-Proof Your Child."

He says many of the programs set up to stop alcohol abuse contribute to the teen binge-drinking crisis. Any program that tells kids flatly not to drink creates temptation, he says. "Preparing your child to drink at home lessens the likelihood that they are going to binge drink," he says. "Not sharing alcohol with your child is a risk factor for binge drinking."

Peele says other cultures have figured it out. He points to Italy, Greece and Israel, where children are given small amounts of wine at religious celebrations or watered-down alcohol on special occasions.

But many other experts say the psychologist is off base. "That's ridiculous," says Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation. "By allowing teens to drink," Fay says, "you are giving permission to your children to do harmful things."

In the spring of 2007, the U.S. surgeon general's office issued its first "Call to Action" to stop underage drinking. "This is not something that is a rite of passage," says acting Surgeon General Kenneth Moritsugu. "It has an impact, short term and long term."

"When I went to medical school," Moritsugu says, "the science at that time told us that our brains had finished developing at 2 or 2 and a half. Over the past few decades ... science shows our brains continue to develop well into our mid-20s".

Fay also says Stanton Peele doesn't take into account other consequences of teen drinking, such as unsafe sex and drunken driving. "You don't have to be addicted to be harmed or die because of drugs and alcohol."

But the psychologist contends that kids are going to drink no matter what and that it is critical for parents to set the example. "I think the key to preventing all kinds of addiction is to make sure that your child values life, values himself and has purpose in life," he says. "That's the single most important thing."

Now 19, Anna Peele is a sophomore at New York University. She wants to be an actress. She does drink with her friends, but she says that it's always in moderation and that she is well aware of her responsibilities. "Your parents expect you to do your work and get the most out of your education. ... They're not paying for us to drink."

(http://www.cnn.com)