War Tax A Good Idea
Certain Democrats in Congress, in advance of President Obama's announcement of his new Afghanistan strategy, have come up with a rather novel idea -- to actually pay for the wars we're fighting, by passing a "war tax." The idea is an interesting one, in several ways. At this point, it doesn't appear to have enough support to actually pass, but that could change quickly as Democrats make the case for it to the public.
The idea itself is a basic one -- pay for the costs of war now, instead of endlessly borrowing money in order to do so. A few weeks ago, the White House leaked an interesting factoid -- it costs one million dollars to put one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year. This is a nice round number, and gets people to think about the war in a new light -- how much it costs.
We've already spent over a trillion (that's with a "T") dollars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. None of it was paid for through new taxes -- the first time in American history we have gone to war without at least attempting to raise the money to pay for it. This is part of the reason why the federal government is running such a huge deficit right now.
Republicans seem to have latched onto the deficit as an (if not "the") issue to campaign on next year. They're hoping that Americans will conveniently forget their own "borrow and spend" reign when they last held Congress and the White House, and it's probably a good bet that some of the public will indeed forget their fiscal irresponsibility.
The fact is that since the Democrats have retaken Congress, they have done more to be "budget neutral" in their legislation than Republicans ever managed to do. New spending programs must be paid for, or else they don't even get to the floor. Except for one very big exception -- military spending.
With President Obama set to announce, from all published accounts, a rather large troop increase in Afghanistan next week -- on top of the 30,000 additional troops Obama has already sent over there earlier this year. So the timing is good to start a discussion about paying for our wars.
There is the question of who will get taxed, of course. Barney Frank is talking about increasing income taxes, but Obama has said all along that he won't tax people making less than a quarter million dollars a year, and if he sticks to that then it would only be a surcharge on the very wealthy. My personal choice would be to tax every Wall Street bonus at a new special "war tax" rate of ninety percent. You got a two million dollar bonus? Well, sorry, you'll have to survive on $200,000 instead. There's a war on, y'know.
But whether the measure passes or not (and whoever it ultimately winds up taxing if it does), this would seem to be a very smart political move for Democrats to make. Republicans are ramping up their standard "Washington spends too much" type of campaign, trying desperately to paint themselves as fiscal conservatives in time for next year's election. So force them to vote on being fiscally conservative on military funding in the meantime.
This pits one favorite Republican position (more troops!) against another favorite Republican position (cutting the deficit), and puts them in an untenable position. Their standard response to the deficit, after all, is: "Cut government spending!" At the same time, their standard response to our wars has been: "More troops! More money!" If Democrats point out that you cannot have it both ways, then they back Republicans into a corner. The Republicans have equated shoveling money at the Pentagon with "patriotism" for the duration of both these wars, meaning they can't apply their standard partisan formula ("cut government spending") to it at all. And they want to make fiscal responsibility their main platform next year, so Democrats forcing them to vote on a war tax means they'd either have to vote against "supporting our troops" or they'd have to vote for a tax increase. As I said, this puts them between a rock and a hard place politically.
Here's a campaign ad to show what I mean: "Republican Congressman Jones says he's for fiscal responsibility out on the campaign trail. But when Jones had a chance to actually pay for America's wars, he voted instead to keep the Bush formula of borrowing all that money from China. Democrat Smith is for paying as you go, and balancing budgets. Republican Jones is for endless borrowing from China instead. Vote Smith."
Or perhaps: "Democrats have had enough of borrowing money from foreign countries to pay for our wars. We think it is patriotic to ask the wealthiest of the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes so that our brave men and women overseas don't have to wonder whether their mission is putting our country further and further into debt. Republicans don't agree, since they are against paying for our wars now, and want to heap a bunch of debt on our children and grandchildren instead of being fiscally responsible. Vote Democratic."
Not only is the idea of passing a war tax a good one on the face of it, it also gives Democrats some much-needed political cover next year on the whole question of "fiscal responsibility." Whenever Republicans bring up fiscal responsibility during the campaign, Democrats could immediately respond: "If you're so fiscally responsible, why are you for borrowing all the money we need to fight our wars from China?" There is no good answer to that question, because the Republican "fiscally conservative" talking point does not include the Pentagon at all. Republicans are never going to come out for less military spending, which means that they have no answer to the cold, hard fact that war spending is a budget-buster.
Salon reported today that this effort is being led in the House by Charlie Rangel, David Obey, Barney Frank, John Murtha, and John Larson -- powerful Democrats in positions of leadership in the budgeting process.
The war tax idea is a fairly new one, so gauging support for it isn't really possible yet, although some have said it doesn't have nearly enough support to pass. Yet.
But this is not only a good idea, but also a winning issue for the Democrats, and they should realize it and get behind it. "We want to tax Wall Street million-dollar bonuses so that we don't have to borrow money from China to pay for our brave troops" has a real ring to it. It taps into the growing wave of populism afoot in the country right now. It also taps into the patriotic "support the troops" mantra of Republicans. And it puts the deficit issue front-and-center in the midst of talking about war strategies for the next few years. As an added bonus, it paints the Republicans into a political corner and forces them to admit that they can't have their cake and eat it too when it comes to the deficit and the Pentagon.
The more I think about it, the harder it is to see a downside to the issue. Especially since (for once) the Democrats' timing seems to be excellent. This debate should be a centerpiece of the Afghanistan debate which is going to take place next week on Capitol Hill. If "paying for the war" were mentioned in the same breath as "Afghanistan" or even "Iraq," it would start people thinking about that million dollars per year per soldier it's costing us.
And that would also be a good thing.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris, imagine for a minute that a "war tax" had been put in place after 9/11, amid all the patriotic fervor. Or imagine that, instead of a new tax, the Bush tax cuts had not been proposed or passed in the spirit of the "war effort."
Those tax cuts wound up doing virtually nothing for the economy. The Bush recovery was the slightest since WWII, and by 2008 there were fewer jobs in America than there had been when he took office.
So imagine that, instead of tax cuts, we had actually paid the full cost of two wars. Even with all the disastrous results of Iraq and imperial neglect in Afghanistan, the federal deficit would be about three trillion dollars less.
Think about that. Then watch this.
Ah yes. Let's bring out the old BBB to absolve Obama of all his sins... :^/ siiiggghhhhh
Will Democrats ever be able to stand on their own two feet and man up??
I see no evidence of this...
As to the Wall Street war tax, I think it's a phenomenal idea!
But any Democrat that can push the Wall Street war tax and then vote for the Tax Increase abomination that is DunselCare deserves an Academy Award (Or maybe an MIDOTW :D) for chutzpah and hypocrisy.
Michale....
I am also constrained to point out that the idea of John "The Haditha Marines Are Butchers!!!" Murtha could claim to be "pro" military is utterly laughable!!
Michale.....
Chris, if I drag a man out of his house hog-tied and then shoot him in the back of the head four times, what do you call it?
Hmmm. War tax. An interesting idea from a couple of perspectives. I think people would be more inclined to want to end this war if they could see a direct impact on themselves.
With all the borrowing, it's like teenagers with a credit card. Everything looks good today until the payments come due.
I would be interested to see how those who would be against such a tax (the wealthy, that is) would spin it to paint it as reprehensible. Probably they would first explore the "raising taxes" issue. Or, maybe somehow try to tag this as unpatriotic - "our boys are dying in Afghanistan and all you liberals can think to do is raise taxes here at home."
But I don't know if this resonates. I think about it and it seems responsible. Like not spending more than we take in.
-David
when phrased as a "war tax," it reads like a gimmick. but in general, it would be a splendid idea for all taxes to be charged based on the intended uses for the money, not the means by which it would be calculated or collected. that way, it wouldn't be so well-hidden how many teachers and farm workers it takes to pay the multi-million dollar bonuses of investment bankers.
Chris, if I drag a man out of his house hog-tied and then shoot him in the back of the head four times, what do you call it?
If you happened to be walking past a house on a military patrol and were attacked by occupants of the house and in the ensuing counter-attack you dragged a armed man out of his house and said man broke away from your grip and went for a weapon and you shot him, then it would be called self-defense and another day of combat in Iraq.
Your military-bashing scenario is a Hysterical Lefties' wet dream.
My scenario is pretty much what happened.
David,
Hmmm. War tax. An interesting idea from a couple of perspectives. I think people would be more inclined to want to end this war if they could see a direct impact on themselves.
I would be a great fan of this War Tax, if it would be applied equally.
But, knowing the recent history of this administration, it is clear that only conservatives would be taxed. The administration would find exemptions or rebates for their political buddies...
Michale.....
Chris, this is among the most insane things I've read lately:
Marines thought they saw him burying an IED by the road. No IED was ever found.
There has to be an attack before there can be a counter-attack. While convoys had been attacked in that area several times recently, they were still attacked after the murder of Awad. In fact, his relatives were obliged to recoup the family honor. That is why "harsher" tactics are a strategy of self-defeat.
What? Why would I be dragging an armed man? If he was armed, I would shoot him. And more likely in the face than in the back of the head, which is where the US Army found four 5.56 mm rounds. And if he was armed, why did he need to break away to get armed again? What's more, why would you hog-tie a man you just shot to death?
In what universe does that make a damn bit of sense?
No, then it would be called the most unusual gunfight in history.
Uh-huh. Because you know better than the military jury. Right.
Marines thought they saw him burying an IED by the road. No IED was ever found.
That's because the IED had detonated, killing one of the US Marines. Ya know.. An AMERICAN soldier??
What? Why would I be dragging an armed man? If he was armed, I would shoot him. And more likely in the face than in the back of the head, which is where the US Army found four 5.56 mm rounds. And if he was armed, why did he need to break away to get armed again? What's more, why would you hog-tie a man you just shot to death?
My scenario was a "fer instance" and not an exact play by play on what occurred at Haditha. It was to counter your LAUGHABLE idea that the US Marines would intentionally gun down innocent women and children in cold blood with no remorse..
I always seem to be asking you whose side your on.. Why do you think that is??
Uh-huh. Because you know better than the military jury. Right.
You mean the military jury that has acquitted ALL defendants save one?? That jury??
Or maybe you mean the military judge who said, "the government version is unsupported by independent evidence... To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."
Once again, we see you wanting to give the benefit of the doubt to ANYONE and EVERYONE but your fellow Americans.
Regardless of your biased and (apparently) hateful view of the military, the simple fact is Murtha screwed the pooch with his comments. He should not have been making those kinds of comments. Especially about US Marines.
I guess the concept of "once a Marine, always a Marine" doesn't apply to the likes of John P Murtha.
Have a great holiday, Ink... :D
Michale.....
Chris, someone seems to be confused about two completely different cases.
The suggestion that justice is somehow unpatriotic is the mark of an authoritarian's argument.
Anyone who's ever served can testify to the unique capacity of the American soldier to be a dumbass. Heck, just ask anyone living around Ft. Carson.
No one is claiming that justice is unpatriotic..
However, witch-hunt inspired hysteria against our service men and women, just because you blindly hate the former commander in chief is..
Anyone who's ever served can testify to the unique capacity of the American soldier to be a dumbass.
I rest my case...
Soldiers deserve our respect.. Not your scorn..
Michale....
Regardless of your facetious arguments, my original point still stands as valid.
John Those-Haditha-Marines-Are-Butchers Murtha should not have been making such proclamations of guilt whatsoever, regardless of the validity or (in this case) the invalidity of the accusation.
Iddn't it funny how the Hysterical Left is so eager to apply the innocent-until-proven-guilty to terrorists and other assorted scumbags, but hysterically condemns fellow Americans and US soldiers solely on the basis of irrational and illogical innuendo??
Why do you think that is??
Michale.....
And he wonders why I call him a troll and refuse to engage him, Chris.
If by "troll" you mean you cannot hold up under the logical, rational and (most often) accurate arguments I make, then yea..
By your creative, yet wholly inaccurate definition, I guess I am a troll.. :D
I accept your concession... :D
Michale.....