Common Dreams NewsCenter

Net Roots Nation

 
     
Home | Newswire | Contacting Us | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives
   
 
     
 

Discuss this story Discuss this story Print This Post Print This Post E-Mail This Article
 
 

Cindy, Guess Who Voted No on the War? A Peace Tax Pledge

by Robert Naiman

The progressive political world is wailing and gnashing its teeth over the failure of Congressional Democrats to stand up to President Bush on the war supplemental. Most spectacularly, Cindy Sheehan has “resigned her commission” as the “face of the anti-war movement,” to rest and spend more time with her family.
Godspeed, Cindy. You have been a shining example of true patriotism and love of country, what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “civil courage.” Instead of suffering quietly, you took your grief and marched right into the fire. Victor Frankl would be green with envy. Good-bye “for now,” as our friend the President of Venezuela famously said.But before everybody else packs their bags and heads for the hills, consider this.

Guess who voted no on the war supplemental?

Ellen Tauscher.

Why is that significant?

Because Ellen Tauscher is a Congressional Democrat who was targeted by activists for failing to vote Democratic in Congress.

Ari Melber reported for The Nation:

“To clarify, Rep. Tauscher is not a blue dog.” The emphatic one-line e-mail, dashed off by a spokesman for California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, is one of the first signs that a new coalition of unions and Internet activists has gotten the Democratic Party’s attention. Tauscher has long been a probusiness voice and outspoken member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. Yet recently her conservatism–from supporting the GOP bankruptcy bill to airing her concern that liberals might run Congressional leaders “over the left cliff”–has put her in the cross hairs of an effort to reform the Democratic Party from the bottom up. She was branded a “top offender” on the website of Working For Us, a new political action committee pressing Democratic incumbents to support “economic security,” a “living wage for all workers” and a “progressive political agenda.” Breaking sharply with the posture of most progressive organizations, the group will not simply criticize Democrats who fail that test. It will try to end their careers.
Working For Us co-founder Steve Rosenthal emphasized that in holding Democrats to account, activists “do not have to win any races to be effective. ‘The primary is not the victory; the victory is getting Democrats to act like Democrats.’”

Count this as a victory.

How many more such victories do we need? Depends how you count.

But the McGovern timetable for withdrawal bill got 171 votes in the House. 218 would be a majority, so that means we need to move 47 Members - 11% of the House - into the “firm support for a real timetable for withdrawal” camp.

Many activities can contribute to this goal. But clearly, threatening incumbents with primaries has been shown to be effective. This means that some folks are going to have to be willing to run for office, and some people are going to have to circulate some nominating petitions, and some people are going to have to donate some money.

Of all these things, donating money is the easiest. You don’t even have to leave your chair.

How much should everyone be prepared to contribute?

Everyone will have to decide for themselves, but here is a rough calculation. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that in the 2005-6 election cycle, 0.35% of the U.S. population gave more than $200, the threshold for itemized contributions. Let’s assume that most of these contributions came from the richest quarter of Americans, the ones with household incomes more than $75,000. Let’s say that the median household income for this subgroup group is about $100,000. Let’s say that they gave exactly $200, clearly less than they actually gave. Then they gave about one-fifth of one percent of their household income.

So if your household income was about $50,000 last year - that was roughly the median, according to the Census - your fair share for ending the war in Iraq is about $100. If your household income was $75,000, your fair share is about $150. If your household income was $25,000, your fair share for ending the war is about $50.

Of course, we’re on the honor system here, and you can adjust your “peace tax” to your individual circumstances. Those below the median may adjust downwards a bit, and those above the median should consider adjusting upwards. But if you’re serious about ending the war, you must pay something. If thousands of Americans across the country declare their intention to pony up for anti-war candidates - a kind of armchair “Pledge of Resistance” - more candidates will consider running, more incumbents will take the threat seriously, and we’ll win more of those victories that Steve Rosenthal talked about. The next vote on the war will come out differently.

Cindy, enjoy your rest. Everybody else, get back to work. Make your anger productive for humanity - and pony up.

Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy.


These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Technorati
 

7 Comments so far

  1. Vic Anderson May 30th, 2007 4:42 pm

    Why MUST WE PAY, AGAIN for our PAID PUBLIC SERVANTS’ public service?

  2. Poet May 30th, 2007 6:47 pm

    Because the incumbents are an unprincipled bunch who court our vote then tell us to take our concerns and go to hell. Duhh…

    If everyone who voted for that abomination of a funding bill were confronted with a primary challenge over their vote on the war funding, suddenly the Iraqi war would be the issue in all national campaigns (as it should be). Otherwise watch for everybody to pretend it doesn’t even exist and besides what can they do about it since it is a done deal.

  3. Nanoo May 30th, 2007 10:07 pm

    When we have to pay someone to stop funding an illegal occupation, an representative of the US public, what the hell is this?

  4. Poet May 31st, 2007 2:42 am

    It’s called “politics”. Why do you think that candidates are willing to spend or raise from others millions of dollars to obtain a job which (even with its pension and health benefits) pays much less?

    The power of political office is not its perks and salary, but rather its influence. The cororatocracy got to where it is by realizing precisely that. Our politicians are lovers of no one–rather they are like so many sex workers who sell their services to the highest bidder.

    The only way to “retire” such operatives is to replace them with others who are replaced with others who are replaced with others, till these stuffed shirts and blouses realize there is no future in selling out.

  5. fedupwithpolitics May 31st, 2007 11:05 am

    In Minnesota, we had the “pleasure” of seeing Democratic hopeful Amy Klobuchar vote “yes” on the war funding bill–along with the bubble-headed Republican Michele Bachman–hiding behind that pathetic Republican talking point of supporting the troops. How many will die for your stupidity, Amy?

  6. Alkalye May 31st, 2007 12:54 pm

    if all you cheap bastards

    (who’s only ‘contribution’ to poltics is ranting on bulletine boards)

    gave to the likes of kucinich he’d have money for airtime- hence exposure.

    let’s face the facts folks

    all the political mumble jumbo progressive bullshit isn’t really about the population and large,

    rather,

    its all about YOU and the identity you receive from it.

    all this social justice carebearing and sharing and lov-eee dov-eee

    is nothing more than your own rebel without a cause version
    of POLO JEANS

    its a name brand that you don’t have to spend actual money on—-

    CUZ

    you are——-CHEAP

    and can only relate to others as to how they affect YOU.

    all about you.

    me
    me
    me
    me
    me
    me
    me
    me
    me
    me
    me

  7. KayWrites May 31st, 2007 1:28 pm

    Okay, here is the faulty reasoning in your idea. First of all, this only works on members of Congress elected in upcoming terms, i.e., in 2008. Not that some of these lackies don’t need to go. But rememeber, in 2008 we will also elect a new president. And if the American people have any sense they will elect someone who will begin the troop withdrawal 15 minutes after taking the oath of office. So this idea is completely moot.

    Even if it wasn’t and by some miracle the current members of the House and Senate grew enough balls to pass yet another bill that forces a funding cutoff without timelines for withdrawal, the current Chimp-in-Chief would just veto it. Without a veto-proof majority (unlikely with so many Repugs still in Congress), such legislation is just for show as we all discovered when Bushie Boy vetoed the funding bill with troop withdrawl deadlines a couple of weeks ago.

    And even with a veto-proof majority, the Weasel-in-Chief would simply add a signing statement to the bill saying he thought this part of the bill impinged on his imperial, uhm, excuse me, “executive” authority and he doesn’t have to abide by it.

    The only way to end this war before January 21, 2009 is to stop George W. Bush. The only way to stop George W. Bush is to impeach him. Cheney first.

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)

 
   FAIR USE NOTICE  
  This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
 
 
 
Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.
Home | Newswire | Contacting Us | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives

© Copyrighted 1997-2008
www.commondreams.org