Obey's War Tax
Congressman David Obey, who called for a tax to pay for the war in Iraq two years ago, has done it again. He's calling for a tax to pay for Afghanistan. It's a very good idea for several reasons:
1. A war is, one would hope, a temporary aberration from budget norms, requiring a jolt of new revenues. It is also the most consequential decision that a President and Congress can make; therefore, they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are.
2. The notion of shared sacrifice has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle. If we really "support" the troops, we should support the troops...In a war, every citizen should have to contribute something to the effort.
Some will say: it won't pass, and we have national security interests in Afghanistan. Trye enough. I'm in favor of continuing the Afghan campaign, and I'd be more than willing to pay my fair share for it...But there's a larger national interest that needs to be tested: in the Reagan era, a disconnect has developed between the people and their fiscal responsibilities. Any tax that ties one to the other over a concrete matter, like a war, will help rebuild the necessary relationship between spending and taxing. For Republicans who favor the war but oppose taxation, this would be a particularly crucial test of citizenship. (Although it should be noted that the Democrat Lyndon Johnson was the first to fudge the funding of a war, in Vietnam.)
If the public honestly wants the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan and increase the risk of an Islamist military coup in Pakistan, then its views should be honored. I can't believe that will be the case...if the case is properly made. But if the public believes that U.S. national security requires a continuing presence in Afghanistan, then it should be willing to pay the tab.
-
2
A choice between higher taxes/military spending or no new taxes and less military spending? Normally, that's enough to make most right-whingers' heads explode...
...but, then again, in Conservatopia, you can have your cake and eat it too! Simply spend whatever you want, put it in the 'military' column, and put it on your kids' First Bank of Beijing credit card...
-
3
Tax us for a war without meaning, sure I am already paying taxes for a bloated military. How about taking the whole defense budget out of the regular budget and send us a separate bill for those services. Maybe when the people see how much it costs to fix our international problems with wars and other offensive methods, we will scale back to a purely defense position.
-
4
Don't you know that Reagan proved that military spending doesn't add to the deficit?
-
5
“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."
“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.”
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/
-
6
We don't need no stinking tax hike to pay for these wars. Or anything else. As our illustrious former leader has already directed us "go to the mall and spend money"!
Because endlessly spending money on wars and big government programs without ever considering how to actually PAY for them really is not an issue.... -
7
Someone from the White House would surely take Obey out before he could even get to the House floor with this bill...
-
8
1. A war is, one would hope, a temporary aberration from budget norms, requiring a jolt of new revenues. It is also the most consequential decision that a President and Congress can make; therefore, they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are.
2. The notion of shared sacrifice has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle. If we really "support" the troops, we should support the troops...In a war, every citizen should have to contribute something to the effort.
.
Perhaps Joe Klein, there needs to be another reassessment to the "disconnect" you are referring to. Perhaps before your number 1 or number 2 opinion, our Government Officials, starting off with Obama, should first READ the Constitution and determine from that 14 Page document exactly what the Federal Government should or should not be spending tax payer dollars on out of the Federal Budget.
.
There is so much legislation that has been passed in the past 230+ years which has NOTHING to do with the Constitutional powers of the Federal Government, with the exception of sustaining a military. And, even at that, the Constitution does not demand a "standing" military in the wait for some event to occur.
.
Through legislation over the years we fund welfare programs, huge entitlement programs, bureaucracies from saving horned toads to building bridges to no where.
.
You are just focusing on the military? The one responsibility that the Federal Government has which ensures the ultimate responsibility to it's citizens to protect and defend them?
.
Maybe this will help a little...
." Section 8 lists specific powers of Congress, including the power to establish and maintain an army and navy, to establish post offices, to create courts, to regulate commerce between the states, to declare war, and to raise money. It also includes a clause known as the Elastic Clause which allows it to pass any law necessary for the carrying out of the previously listed powers."
.
Maybe this link explaining the Constitution will help you and the rest of your Liberal friends here in the Swamp. Liberals, who somehow believe the Federal Government by proxy of the Constitution is here to "keep" all of it's citizens and provide for all of their basic daily needs.
.
Please show me where it says for example, "Health Care is a RIGHT that all Americans are to be provided by their Government".
.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html
.
I am somehow at a loss to see where that basic "right" is contained in the constitution.
.
Shear trollery if I have ever read it!!
.
Joe "the Troll" Klein. It does have a nice ring to it.-
8.1
And then he came, the man with the hammer.
-
8.2
For god;'s sake, rusty, get your sorry a** to Afghanistan and do something worthwhile with yourself.
-
8.3
I did serve my country already palininatowel. What's your excuse? Plus I am just too old, I did try to re-enlist right after 9/11 to serve again, but they declined me due to my age.
.
But, when the terrorists come to our shores to fight this Jihadist War on anything non-Muslim, perhaps they will reconsider like they did during the Civil War. -
8.4
rusty, go over as a government contractor. They need truck drivers.
-
8.5
Rusty,the post was about new taxes to fund the war. Unless you are implying that the constitution does not give Congress the power to tax, you are completely off topic. More importantly, it's the basic principle of fiscal responsibility; the government should run a balanced budget unless there is an emergency that requires extra spending, and that extra spending should still be offset further down the line. So, unless you're against fiscal responsibility, you're talking to the wall. Have a nice day.
-
-
9
" .. I did try to re-enlist right after 9/11 to serve again, but they declined me due to my age. .."
Rusty, ways of the righteous and the wingnuts are many and wondrous: You cannot take a no for a answer.
Just sneak acros their borders and rain the holy fire and brimstone on those heathen Islamist phillistines!
-
10
I see what you're saying but I'm unwilling, 8 years into a war that should have been over a long time ago, to pay a war tax for it now. It was so bungled, why should I now suddenly be asked to pay for it, in the middle of a recession?
-
10.1
The War Tax is to pay for the increase build-up, $40 Billion a year. The bill for Bush's War is still due.
-
-
11
While I think this would have been a good idea at the outset of this little endeavor, I don't think it is a good idea now. Further funding would just encourage the extension of our endeavor there when we need to be drawing down.
-
12
" .. (war funding) is also the most consequential decision that a President and Congress can make; therefore, they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are. .."
As an aside: This president and this congress did NOT make a decision to go to war.
A decision NOT to fund a war is similarly "most consequential".
.
" .. If we really "support" the troops, we should support the troops... "A decision to end a war and to bering our troops back home should not be construed as a lack of "support" for our troops.
Do we support our troops only when they are in harm's way?
.
" .. a particularly crucial test of citizenship. .."
It is irresponsible psyche war to go around devicing crucial litmus tests for our patriotism and citizenship. That is a cheap trick that dictators and tyrant would love to employ frequently.
[It is also irresponsible for a young man to go around telling young girls what to do to PROVE that they love him.]
.
" .. If the public honestly wants the Taliban to return to power ..and increase the risk of an Islamist military coup ... "
You are pretty good at fear-mongering - like raising the fear of nuclear-armed Saddam and Iran so that we acquiesce, indeed kowtow, to the whims and hedonism of a nuclear-armed Israel.
.
" .. the public believes that U.S. national security requires a continuing presence in Afghanistan,..""continuing presence"?
For the ultimate confidence in our national security, a case can be made for USA's imperial invasion and occupation/colonization of all countries of the world - with especially draconian focus on UK. (I like that..) -
13
What is most amazing to me on these blogs (and I'm not intentionally side-tracking this discussion). I wonder how honest blog commenters would be if their full name is attached to their comments. I've elected to do that, as has the author of this article in this first place. I'd love to see more conservatives doing that (rusty, the invitation is open).
On to the topic at hand. I couldn't agree more. As a "moderate progressive", I completely support a balanced budget and understand that the only way to do that is to bring both spending and income in line with each other.
If we the people support our government's activities, then we should fund them. I would love to see taxation tied directly to spending and programs. Fund the war with a war tax. Fund education with an education tax. Fund healthcare with a healthcare tax. We already label our spending (and thank Obama for actually including war spending in the budget, unlike Bush who hid it from the American people). We should label our income by tying it directly to spending.
That way, voters can determine whether or not someone should stay in office based on how they vote. If you don't get the cost benefit from your congressional representative, then you can vote them out of office. You can also vote for those who people who create real benefits tied to income and spending for the government.
And Rusty, healthcare is definitely something that falls under "regulating commerce between the states" as health insurance companies operate across state lines but are currently regulated solely within individual states, resulting in greater costs and inefficiencies with an ever-increasingly mobile population.
As another quick sidebar, Rusty, we pay for our post offices through a privately charted public postal service using stamps. I'm all for a similar system for healthcare, and wars.
-
13.1
Mercy, so much to respond to, but why bother. As usual our liberal friends do not support any of their opinions with anything except bloviation of their liberal talking points.
.
I will make one comment however, I would be for a fully balanced budget with no deficit spending what-so-ever for the Federal Government. The same constraints which are put on every State in the Union.
.
And, while you are at it, pass legislation that downsizes the IRS and put on a flat tax for ALL citizens to pay, not just the select few who are lucky enough to make enough money and be taxed to hell and back by our liberal Congress. Especially a liberal Congress that feels anyone who so desires should have all of their basic needs paid for out of tax payer dollars.
.
You know. "Spread the wealth is what I am for" Barack Obama!! -
13.2
" .. If we the people support our government's activities, then we should fund them. .."
And if we don't want to keep on forever killing innocent Iraqis and Afghan cave-dwellers, then we don't.
So, why the shrill pressure?
Which part of the citizens' "NO" don't you get? -
13.3
@rustyreturns
You're such an idiot. I apologize to the rest of Swampland for my lack of useful input.
-
-
14
I forgot to ask 'cause it is so obvious: Are we at war?
With Al-Queda? With Taliban? Somali Muslims? All terrorists? Any insurgent/nationalist who is against our plunder of their resources?
-
15
Rusty:
Gee so many idiots so little time!
"I'd love to see more conservatives doing that (rusty, the invitation is open)." And how about liberals? Or can they pontificate erroneously with impunity?
"we pay for our post offices through a privately charted public postal service using stamps. I'm all for a similar system for healthcare, and wars"
And you actually hit one that is a constitutional duty of the federal government (defense). Nothing anywhere for the PO or HC. (And both of these will run deficits- great system)
" .. (war funding) is also the most consequential decision that a President and Congress can make; therefore, they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are. .."
"As an aside: This president and this congress did NOT make a decision to go to war.".
And that means what? Do-over ion the vote? And many in Congress did vote for it. Unless you count those that voted for it before they voted against it.
"A decision to end a war and to bering our troops back home should not be construed as a lack of "support" for our troops."
But if you are against Obama's policy you are rooting for failure. Liberal logic (an oxymoron) is dizzying. Yes the troops cheer when the left questions the war, their tactics and everything else about the war. But hey we support the troops! Just ask the Vietnam vets how well supported they felt by the same pompous-ass nonsense.
"You are pretty good at fear-mongering - like raising the fear of nuclear-armed Saddam and Iran so that we acquiesce, indeed kowtow, to the whims and hedonism of a nuclear-armed Israel"
Was it the same fear-mongering that Frenchy Kerry, Bill & Hillary Clinton and most of the rest of the Dumos were doing with Saddam or are they just stupid.
So many idiots Rusty so little time!
-
15.1
free, I think you need to enlighten rusty as to why flushing more money down the sewer of Afghanistan is such a bad idea.
.
rusty rambles on and on about the Founding Fathers' original intent, but he doesn't grasp the simple facts of Afghanistan.
.
You could help him out here. -
15.2
Not to defend rusty, but if I'm not mistaken, he favors withdrawal from Afghanistan.
-
-
16
My guess is that the public doesn't want the Taliban to return to power, but also doesn't think we can do much about it.
Considering that our government was largely responsible for the Taliban to be in power in the first place, and considering that they held power long before our attack, and considering that our attack was over binLaden who is still at large, not to destroy the Taliban per se, and that the original purpose has and continues to shift in a schizophrenic manner, in keeping with our traditional foreign policy, what is the point?
Citizens can best share the sacrifice for war not by a manipulative tax, but by restoring conscription or universal service. A further benefit of that would be to introduce a broad cross section of society into the military and halt a shift to a right wing, religious crazed force. Sorry, I had to get my shot at religion in. Religionists please ignore it.
-
16.1
And we could cut the cost of health care reform as the liberals run, I mean re-deploy to Canada.
-
16.2
freeinpa, sorry if the point you are making escapes me. To beat you to the punch, I am such an idiot. In your world, at least.
A few people (liberals?) avoided the draft when it existed by leaving our country. I think you have no idea what a sacrifice that is.
But more to the point, you do extreme disservice and disrespect (in ignorance) to the majority of the over 50,000 citizens, most of whom had been conscripted, who died in Viet Nam.
I would say, "Shame on you", but knowing that you know no shame (in the small world of your mind), I won't say more.
-
-
17
freeinpa: "So many idiots Rusty so little time!"
Why do you waste any of the little time you have - arguing with idiots?
Have you thought about staying away from idiots - or do you really belong with them?
[Note: Idiots have a difficult time making good decisions ...]-
17.1
I am sure you had a point and it made sense in your head but .....
-
17.2
actually, kinda makes sense to me. i don't know why you didn't get what he's saying.
.
Regarding 'no war without taxation', i think it's an idea worth exploring. but i'd prefer if we didn't have any 'war supplementals'. we need to add every expense we're gonna make to the budget. Emergency expenses have to be added to the next budget. No separate Defense budget either. Just one annual budget.All expenses in their totality. Whether it's paid for is another question. All of it needs to be reflected in the budget though. In practical terms, i think the likelihood of this law passing is much much greater.
-
-
18
Regarding the idea of a 'War Tax'... are you not aware that this is exactly what we have all been paying in the form of the Federal Income Tax? Where do you think Income Tax came from?
When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the Founding Fathers recognized that no government could function if it relied entirely on other governments for its resources, thus the Federal Government was granted the authority to raise taxes. The Constitution endowed the Congress with the power to "…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Common Defense = Military/War
-
19
Thats the problem. These wars are funded on deficit/debt spending. Bush during two wars made one of the biggest tax cuts in history to the rich.You don't cut taxes in a war. You have to raise taxes to pay with these wars. Obey is right. The only people sacrificing is military families. There were serious sacrifices for everyone during ww2,vietnam,etc. We're in this position because of congress and Bush during those 8 years.
Either raise taxes or end the war. Otherwise we will be forced to end the war when the money runs out.
-
20
In the second paragraph, the section that reads: "It is also the most consequential decision that a President and Congress can make; therefore, they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are."; is the only part of this article I agree with, if they make the decision, THEY should pay for it, not the american people - e.g. the tax should only apply to members of congress and the president/VP.
-
20.1
We know how wingnuts hate new taxes - all taxes.
We will have endless filibusters - and no wars.
-
-
21
[...] [...]
-
22
Hey, Joe Klein, David Obey, who hasn't met a tax he doesn't love, may have come up with his first good idea, but not for the reasons you propose. Since early 2008, I have been urging my fellow Americans, in the name of Jesus, to stop paying federal taxes because their tax dollars were being used by their agents to commit mass homicides. When I wrote a sermon for public consumption in early 2008, I focused on the war in Iraq. Everything I said then about that war can be said about the nation's immoral war in Afghanistan.
See: http://webapp.trafficfacts.com/home.php
I have no doubt that if the revenues used for the nation's military adventures were segregated and financed by a separate "war" tax, many people would find it easier to refuse to pay such a tax. And, of course, a sufficient number of war-tax resisters would make it impossible for the war mongers to continue perpetrating systematic homicide.
-
23
Correction: I inserted the wrong website for the sermon. The correct website is:
-
24
[...] the left is painfully obvious and incredibly obscene. But if you really want to blow a gasket, check out what Joe Klein had to say about Congressman Obey's war tax. Not only does it add to my point, it also demonstrates the blatant level of [...]
- TIME The scoop on Google Buzz from @techland | http://su.pr/1zDlZ6 - 5 hours ago
- TIME Are the bible stories true? Evidence from archaeology | http://su.pr/2ekoPX - 6 hours ago
- TIME Why is NBC pretending Conan never existed? | http://su.pr/4Pbjbh - 7 hours ago
Most Popular »
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- Gibbs Mocks Palin, Tea Party Convention
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Irony of the Day
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
Quotes of the Day »
RSS