Democrats propose war tax

With the exception of all the military families, none of us have either fought or paid for this war.  The money goes straight to the national debt, while the bodies of brave soldiers come home in planes.  If Iraq truly is about September 11th, then telling Americans to go shopping does not cut it. 

This war tax proposal would help offset the more than $12 billion per month that gets added to the debt as a result of the war.  And yes, the tax is steep.  If you don't like it, then end the war!:

The plan unveiled today by House Appropriations Committee ChairmanDavid R. Obey, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P."Jack" Murtha and Rep. Jim McGovern would spread the sacrifice amongall taxpayers by tacking a "war surcharge" on top of the federal incometax. Americans would pay up to 15 percent more on their taxes in orderto raise the $150 billion needed annually to keep the war going.

"If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war," Obey said today.

Again, I don't think any of us would like this extra income tax.  But as far as reality is concerned, the Iraq war adds to the birth tax, which future generations will pay for.  The GOP talks a lot about the unborn.  Well OK -- Let's stop shouldering the burden to unborn children.  How about we, as living human beings, take responsibility and either pay for this war or end it (no question mark needed, because that wasn't a question).

Comments

[granny]

See,now...what rankles me is that I, personally, don't get to end the war (just like I didn't get to prevent it in the first place - though I wanted to)! The people who are not ending it in my behalf, DO get to pass the tax, and I, personally, WILL be paying the tax. So who's "we" & how's this working out for "us"?

[Jon]

I don't like this because in a way the dems are standing up to the American people instead of to Bush. They don't have to force an ultimatum with the voters. The voters are already on their side! Not only does this smack of Dems biting the hand that feeds them, they will also turn off republicans and independents who would have voted with the dems this time. This is a recipe for disaster.

The Dems are really beginning to lose me as a party member. This is pure BS if they think they can blame me for letting this war go on. I don't want to hear anything about genius either. Why the hell do they want to go all Rube Goldberg on us when they have a much more simple and effective tool built right into their powers? F'n Idiots!

This is a double slap in the face especially since no frontrunner is willing to actully end the war! Terrible idea. I hope they choke on it.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

First of all, don't worry. This bill isn't going to pass. Pelosi and Hoyer even oppose it. They are only sending a bill to the floor to make a point -- and it's a point I agree with 100%, regarding the birth tax.

[Jon]

I didn't think it would pass but it still does damage. It wastes valuable time, while dems can claim they put something forward. They can continue with the "Oh we just don't have the votes." spiel. Lets be honest here, the dems aren't actually trying to end the war.

Second it gives ammo to right wing pundits.

Third it makes them look weak and unorganized in the eyes of the entire nation.

I just hate to see people waste time while acting like they are giving an honest effort. They need to keep this bill off of the floor its a huge mistake to have it associated with democrats.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Deep down though, Jon, I don't really think it wastes time to bring up the issue of federal debt. I would rather pay a huge tax than see my grandkids swim in a sea of red ink.

Look at what John Kerry did with the $87 billion. He voted against it. Did he want to deprive the soldiers of body armor? Of course not. But it's called a protest vote.

The amount each month that we are paying for this misbegotten war is mind-boggling -- and we are doing so without balancing the budget.

Also, practically speaking, we can't just convince people to end the war on grounds of morality -- because as you know, with this war some people just don't give a damn about how it is immoral to engage in wars of choice. So, you bring up the other dimension, which is costs, and what this war is doing to our budget. The debt is suffering. States are suffering because of unfunded mandates for sham bills like the Patriot Act. A lot of the war is about cost. Bush has not asked anyone except our military families to make a sacrifice.

[Jon]

Sure national debt is important but the thought process you described is not going to play out in the minds of most Americans.

They will hear the word "tax", clutch their pocketbooks, dig in, and shut down their willingness to listen. Many people don't give a damn about the future on the environment, debt, or what the future world will be like as the result of our foreign policy today.

They just want to know that as long as they live, they can keep their lifestyle. Of course that isn't everyone but I'd venture to say that when it gets down to it most people won't welcome change and responsibility.

As for sacrifice, no Bush didn't ask us to give up materials in his "war on terror" as the nation did during WW2.

1. He doesn't care about debt, thats someone else's problem. Just as with the war he's going to let some other sucker clean up the mess.

2. While he sees Iraq as the central front in the "war on terror" it is really just another one of his failed policies. He doesn't want to be responsible for it and taxing people would be admitting that he was wrong. All the lies he and his administration told. It will be cheap, it will be quick etc. are a far cry from taxing people.

Now while we haven't been asked to give up material goods we have been *forced* to give up liberties. So I don't totally buy into the argument that non military families don't sacrifice.

I'm not against the idea of taxing wars in general. It would be an excellent idea if it were proposed before the war started. I'd love to see how many Americans would want others to rush to the battlements if they had to come out of pocket directly to support it. I bet we would become a nation of researchers then. Who is the enemy, what have they done, is the war based on firm grounds? So I see the merits IF its done the right way.

After the war has started though it doesn't seem smart to do this, even if a large majority of Americans were late to come around to more sober thinking. We will have to pay for the war in any case as it is adding to our debt but again the phrase that comes to mind is Rube Goldberg.

This is just an odd way of making a point on both the war and debt. This plan would only make sense to people who have a sense of responsibility to get things right for the time being and the future of the nation. Americans as a whole aren't prepared to take such leaps in critical thinking.

My point is that Democrats risk making people angry because they look like they aren't doing enough to end the war while at the same time looking like they are blaming Americans.

It can be argued as to how much responsibility the public holds for letting this war start, but Americans are a malleable people and the right wing knows just how to mold them when it comes to war.

[granny]

Great discussion!

I agree that the debt is an issue that ought to be in the forefront - ought to have been long before this. This is neither the time and nor the place.

Triggers a pretty strong "don't try to blame me for your g- d- war, you weak kneed phonies" feeling...

I think Jon is on the mark on this.And the more I consider it, the more I think so. Bad timing. Bad tactic. And potential for some nasty blow-back. Dumb!

Way too late, and too little from Congress on the war and the debt.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Well wait a second. If this is all about tactics, then how can any of us be upset that the Senate or House hasn't ended the war?

lol If I were to write that on this blog, people would have me hanged.

[granny]

Hey... wait a minute! You're the one who pointed out that the bill was only sent to the floor to make a point. That's "tactical" (small scale action serving a larger purpose)- and quite right, the point should be made. I think this action was poorly timed.

I'm upset that they haven't ended the war, because their "tactics" are serving more self interest than representative interest (their professed job, which we pay them for) - designed more by cowering than courage.

I didn't think any of us were under the illusion that consideration of the most effective ways of attaining a goal isn't/ or shouldn't be a factor in effective statesmanship.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

How are their actions serving their self-interest? Do you think the Democrats in Congress enjoy having a 20% approval rating?

[granny]

Whose interest are they serving, then?

That's a real question, and not the first time I've puzzled on it here. What are those people up to? It's not a "group" question, I understand. One can't just attribute the same purpose to each person, carte blanche - or at least not always; And the fact that they're not working as a group is a significant part of the issue. These days. in more instances than not, I end up wondering what on earth the thinking was...

You're quite right. They can't be enjoying that approval rating. So what the hey?
What is running this juggernaut?

[granny]

Working on my own answers here...

I was reading another set of comments just now, and came across this:

"Common ground is lost because the front runner's egos are bigger than their ability to be diplomatically able leaders."

That is essentially a translation of "self interest" - in the way I am thinking.

Ego cannot determine the rational consequence of self preservation. Self preservation "is" ego. Sense of preservation is not rational, it is all there is.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Those are good points, Granny. What I'm trying to say though is that if we are going to have a discussion about tactics, then we can't complain that Democrats aren't able to get 67 votes to end the war. I don't know what else we want them to do.

If we are going to argue from an emotional standpoint, then how dare the Democrats don't stand up to the Republicans...and blah blah.

So which should we use....logic derived from emotion, or logic derived from pragmatism? Since we are all human, maybe both.

[granny]

I'm working on it ...
How about intelligence derived from reality?

Emotion as the driving force, I think can only arrive at some form of retribution/the sense of "evening".

In defining "pragmatic" - practical as opposed to idealistic, this quotation appears: ...so that wouldn't be my choice either.

I'm looking for better words - to describe an approach that could produce a genuinely beneficial result.

In a sense we limit our own (human)progress by accepting habitual ways.

I like this conversation because I think it is evolving in a direction that our thinking should be taking in an overall sense...

[granny]

Oops! The transmission dropped the quote ~
This is how it was written:

In defining "pragmatic" - practical as opposed to idealistic, this quotation appears: ...so that wouldn't be my choice either.

[granny]

Dropped it again.

That's really kind of eerie...
It's in the comment box, and then POOF!

Maybe it wants me to attribute it to Merriam-Webster.

Another try:

[granny]

That's too weird for me! And I'm not kidding...

[Jon]

Quoted from Todd
"What I'm trying to say though is that if we are going to have a discussion about tactics, then we can't complain that Democrats aren't able to get 67 votes to end the war. I don't know what else we want them to do."

You let Bush veto the bill until he signs one agreeing to use the money to bring the troops home instead of continuing the war. That is what we expect them to do and it is fair to criticize them for not doing so. When Bush doesn't sign a bill ending the war then our Democratic leaders should go to the American people(who are on their side since 2006) and remind them that Bush and his Republicans are standing in the way of ending the war.

If the mounting pressure from the coming elections isn't enough to loosen some Republican support, then and only then should we concede that nothing can be done until their is a Democratic president and more Democrats in newly captured seats. For some reason it's good enough for the Child Health Bill but not good enough for Iraq? What about the combined effect of pressing the issue in both cases?

The Dems have to tell the American people we aren't voting to keep the troops in harms way without bullets and state of the art armor but instead that we are voting to bring back your family and friends! So instead of making them sit in an armored vehicle in Baghdad with an increased chance that they wont die while watching a civil war, how about we have them sitting at home with their families safely continuing their lives?

That is a much more simple and effective tactic than telling Americans a TAX of any kind is coming.

The point is these Dems haven't done anything but put forth non-binding, ineffective, we'll get around to it later measures. On the rare occasion there is a Democratic leader that puts together a great bill it flounders. The Webb bill to insure parity between combat deployment and time at home was excellent but it floundered because these Democrats aren't good at making their case to the public and fighting until they get what they want. I can't help but feel that if the Republicans were in a similar fight their side would carry the day.

Quoted from Todd
"If we are going to argue from an emotional standpoint, then how dare the Democrats don't stand up to the Republicans...and blah blah."

Todd, I have to say this comment really disappoints me. There is both logic and emotion at play here. Any emotion that does enter the picture is there because we are watching the Democrats flounder and refuse to use some of the best tools they have at their disposal, all while they have opinion ratings lower than Bush's. The American people want something to be done about Iraq, not in 2013 but yesterday. The 67 vote argument is a cop out used by Democratic leaders and their terrible advisors.

The Democrats need to say something like this.

---My fellow Americans, many of you elected us in 2006 with a clear mandate to end this war, however we do not have the 67 votes with which to override President Bush's stubbornness and repeated vetos of our bill that would ensure a safe and orderly withdrawal for our troops in Iraq. The President's policy has been a failure and it's time that our troops stopped refereeing an Iraqi civil war. We are asking that you call your elected officials in Washington and voice your support for our bill. In 2006 you the voters of our nation sent a clear message, one that the President claimed that he heard loud and clear. He promised change and brought an escalation of the same failed policy.

It's time we turned up the heat on the President and his supporters in the Senate. We are eager and willing to take up this fight to fulfill the promise we made with you to end this war. The coming fight with the President and his supporters will be unlike any we've seen on the Iraq issue before. That is why now more than ever we will need your continued and increasing support. With your help we can gain the support necessary to override the president's veto and the bring our men and women home.---

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Jon, that strategy of giving a nice speech is good in theory, if the Democrats actually had as much media time as the President. Also, who would say it? Pelosi? Reid? Even if we had Jim Webb (who I consider to be the very best in the Senate) do it, I hate to say this, but no one is going to pay attention, really.

The Democrats could bring a war deauthorization resolution to the floor every single day...but in reality, it's not as easy as Mike Gravel thinks. This is 2007, a time when the legislative schedule is jammed because Congress STILL goes on recess all the time, regardless of what Nancy Pelosi promised.

The war isn't the ONLY pressing issue going on now. We tend to forget that. In fact, the war is an incredibly nice diversionary tactic for the Republicans. Did you know that severe poverty is at a 32-year high? Did you know that the middle class has the lowest purchasing power in years -- yet, by the year 2020, much of West India, where many of our jobs are being outsourced, will have a thriving middle class?

Or don't even get me started on health care. Last spring I worked as a political consultant/field organizer for a non-profit that successfully got more poor people covered by preventative health care in Washington state. I saw first-hand how much of an important issue that is.

Or how about education? How about we revamp our school systems and start investing in our kids in poor neighborhoods?

What about global warming? Food shortages. Refugees. Disease. All of that will trump the Iraq war in terms of being a disaster.

Sorry, but the idea of completely shutting down the Senate to deal with ONE issue sounds pretty idealistic, and would deprive other important issues from being addressed.

We can't just be one-dimensional on Iraq either. Addressing the issue of the war as a moral outrage is being done, has been done and will continue to be done until the end of time. What has it produced? All some Democrats were trying to do was remind people that we are not really paying for this war. REALISTICALLY speaking, will my grandkids call the United States a third world country? We are spending $12 billion each month on a war that adds to our debt. When you add debt, it devalues currency. Look at how the Canadian dollar is now even with the US dollar. It's outrageous that many in the anti-war movement have been arguing about this war so one-dimensionally that it produces few new ideas.

All these Congressmen were saying was, "Hey, we have a war that further devalues our currency because we put it on the national credit card and don't pay it off. How about we start paying for it!"

Sorry, but I don't think bringing up the issue of shared sacrifice is such a bad idea -- tactically, strategically, morally or in terms of political strategy. People in my generation are BEGGING to serve in any way they can. They WANT shared sacrifice. We are tired of this "we are the people and we know best" mentality, and "leave us alone." No. It's time to get involved. I have been waiting and waiting for the last three years for some brave Congressmen to propose a tax increase in order to pay for the war. Either do that, or bring back the draft -- then people will actually start caring and the war WILL end.

[Jon]

I just got done writing another book about this issue but I'm not going to post it. The underlying issue here is that the Democrats aren't ending this war anytime soon because they are too busy taking breaks and bringing up non-binding resolutions. See you all on this issue in 2013... hopefully... maybe... if we get around to it in a non-binding sort of way.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Exactly! Stop taking breaks, and start fighting on behalf of taxpayers. That is their job.

And if we want this war to end before 2013, we have to address this issue from multiple angles, including the effect this war has on the next generation that hasn't been born yet.

[granny]

Oh, sorry. What was it you wanted out there? We're pretty busy in here, investigating fraud in the Iraqi governemnt!