Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- An Outpouring of Love and Support for Bradley Manning to Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Treason of Intellectuals
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- The Treason of Intellectuals
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- Chemical Disasters, Agent Orange, and GMOs: Monsanto's Legacy Traced in Exposé
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obey Wants 'War Surtax' to Fund Afghan Effort
WASHINGTON, DC - Any troop increase for Afghanistan should come with a "war surtax" on high income Americans, a top House chairman said Monday.
Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, warned that if President Barack Obama decides to send additional troops to Afghanistan, it should be funded with the new tax. Obey said his proposed tax would be a "graduated" tax on income that would help offset the roughly $40 billion in new costs needed to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, a cost estimated by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orszag. (Photo: Getty Images) Rep.
David Obey (D-Wisc.), the chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee, warned that if President Barack Obama decides to send
additional troops to Afghanistan, it should be funded with the new tax.
"If we have to pay for the healthcare bill, we should pay for the war as well," Obey told ABC News in an interview, "by having a war surtax."
Obey said his proposed tax would be a "graduated" tax on income that would help offset the roughly $40 billion in new costs needed to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, a cost estimated by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orszag.
"I want the president and every American to think ahead of time about what it means if you do add to our involvement in Afghanistan," Obey told ABC, pointing to the war costs that affected the presidencies and domestic agendas of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson.The call for a new tax mirrors a similar demand over the weekend from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on funding the war effort in Afghanistan. Levin told Bloomberg News that he favored an "additional income tax" on incomes over $200,000 or $250,000 to finance any troop surge.
"If we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy," he said. "I'm going to be fighting to get whatever they do paid for."- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
54 Comments so far
Show AllDis Obey!
Tax only those who support this unnecessary, illegal, immoral, foolish war/occupation.
If they think it's "necessary" (Obama's term), and they are unable to serve in our military in Afghanistan, they should put their money where their mouths are.
Those of us who oppose this quagmire prefer our tax money used here at home to provide green jobs and health care for all, and to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
Certainly. We would actually live in something that could accurately be termed a "democratic system" if we could note on our tax forms where our tax money goes. That should be virtually a no-brainer. But those who are happy with the faux democracy we currently have would fight that tooth and nail, and unfortunately they have the great majority of the wealth and the political power.
Would you extend that to all taxes paid? There would be a great change in society if you could direct your tax monies. Some good, but a lot of bad too.
Sure, to all taxes. I would think that anyone who truly believes in democracy would support such a move and would be confident that the benefits would outweigh the costs. The whole idea that we need representatives is based on the assumption that someone needs to devote time and effort to, and develop expertise with regard to, the details of legislation and policy, and that is all well and good. But one loses the value of the vote when the representatives also determine the general areas where money is spent and do so while ignoring voters' expressed wishes and needs. In the modern US political environment, elections are about personalities more than issues, and not even about the real personalities but the ones manufactured by the candidates' campaigns, the opposing campaigns, and the media. Not much "democracy" makes it through those filters.
"But one loses the value of the vote when the representatives also determine the general areas where money is spent and do so while ignoring voters' expressed wishes and needs."
"Not much "democracy" makes it through those filters."
Nuff said!
Not only do those who oppose endless war not want our money spent on it, our consciences are deeply offended. We should not pay for something that offends our morality. We need a Stupak amendment today.
Congress is starting to at least get real about debt.
Do you really think so? Why??
Because the debt crises is forcing the issue and so many articles lately like "Endless war or Health care?".
The world is in a revolutionary phase and it is beginning to affect the USA big time.
War is expensive, and peace is priceless and the War economy is the elephant in the room.
I see these things happening... reality is becoming harder to ignore.
I don't expect you to see it my way, this is my view. The above article is a good example of the change I see happening.
Buck said it is sick that money is the reason... Yes, it is too bad but for whatever reason it is a good change.
"War is expensive, and peace is priceless and the War economy is the elephant in the room."
We certainly see that the same sir!
WE disagree on Congress I guess, the bill they are trying to push through is financially devestating and serves no one that I can tell except Insurance companies and the tax man. Still leaves appox. the same number of folks without coverage and does nothing to contain costs.
They are speaking about a third bail out bill. Spending is increasing in every area......
I agree reality is very hard to ignore but so far this Congress and this President seem determined to ignore it.
Don't be so sure I won't see some things your way. I never close my mind to some one elses view......you might be right. I'm only dogmatic on thing's I know...absolutely know, to be true and demonstrably true.
AND I'm SURE hoping you are right that this Congress is becoming moore realistic about debt and spending. I just don't see it yet.
Cheers!
sorry, double click
Isn't it sick that the argument against war is money?
Money is behind pretty much everything our governments do. Some states are talking about doing away with the death penalty, not because it is the moral thing to do but because it is cheaper to put some away for life than to incur all the legal costs involved with killing them.
Pretty disgusting on both counts if you ask me.
The other day I saw a homeless single mother find a dollar bill blowing in the gutter.
I resent that she was able to keep it when there are so many Bankster in great need and pain.
No more compromise, every red cent in the hands of Banksters NOW!
Definitions of "conscription:"
1. compulsory enrollment of persons for military or naval service; draft.
2. a compulsory contribution of money to a government during a time of war.
----------
"I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster."
--Franklin D. Roosevelt
"THERE WILL BE NO PEACE DIVIDEND." George H.W. Bush at the end of the Cold War. Do you think they won't find ANOTHER reason after Iraqistan? We need a complete and total PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION, a complete and peaceful takeover of Washington DC, to throw the doors open and flush these prostitutes one and all. They have NO interest in the people's business---only for those who have lined their pockets to betray us.
The War at Home against working Americans is far more damaging and threatening to national security than the war's in Iraq and Afghanistan. So how about a surtax on the wealthy for a national jobs program at home.
How about we call off the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bring our troops and money home and change the tax laws and trade laws that reward people and Corporations for destroying jobs and industries?
Also the Laws and regulations that reward people and corporations for warrring.
Democrat David Obey wants to fund the occupation with a surtax. What an example this is of distancing one self from reality. What [alleged[ antiwar Democrats like Obey do not seem to comprehend is that the war, as he puts it, should not be funded at all. If these Democrats had any semblance of a conscience, much less a brain, they would be be cutting off those funds which are keeping the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq afloat. But they refuse to do this which makes this just as culpable and just as militaristic as the Republicans.
"Endless money forms the sinews of war."-Cicero [106-43 BC], Roman statesman and philosopher
Good point.....and good quote!
"Endless money forms the sinews of war."-Cicero
And I bet he said this while his empire had endless money... another empire that went broke from war.
Advice is judged by results, not by intentions.
Cicero
We are certainly past the "endless money" phase aren't we!
Yes, in the sense that endless debt and the falling dollar is the result.
When I watched the video it was clear that Obey is against the wars, and you know, I think his strategy by coming up with this tax is to get us out of these wars. I'm sure he knows that it would be incredibly unpopular -- worse than that pesky tax on tea in Boston. It will be interesting to watch Obama's brilliant speech on why we should support it, though.
I agree that the funds should be cut off, first. But that hasn't worked. The majority have been rubber-stamping these bills. They got people to sign the last funding bill by throwing in the hate crimes legislation. Kucinich voted against it because it was a war-funding bill.
"Obey is against the wars,"
Right on, I'm surprised how many comments fail to realise the thrust of this strategy, but then its typical of a Parliamentary approach. The war is not free and by using a surtax to fund it you increase the chance of winding down the war.
I hope he manages to get the rah rah lets go to war crowd to support and pass a continuing tax for any additional and hopefully existing troops. Its a very positive move.
Taxes!? This means war!
How about a war-profiteering tax instead.
We could start with Haliburton and Blackwater.
Jeevee
EXCELLENT IDEA, DREAMER!!!
I have been advocating for a tax on war for years. Also, we need to pay reparations to Iraq, Iran, Panama, etc. The reparations should come from a war crimes tax on USAers.
The health care "reform" trillion-dollar subsidy for the Illness and Death Profit Industry ought to be paid for by a "corporate vulture subsidy surcharge" not a tax. Make checks payable directly to the industry - the AHIP.
The same goes for funding war profiteers and the MIC/Empire: the funds that pay for that should be called "war profiteer subsidy surcharge". Make checks payable to: the MIC.
Pretty sad that hardly any tax money we pay goes to any beneficial services for the taxpayers, we simply fund a system that undermines our interests. We support kleptocracy
I would love to see everyone stop paying their taxes for just one year. The Empire would collapse.
There should also be an "Opt Out" for non-fascist states
..and how about a "Stupak" type ammendment..since many Americans find war morally repugnant, why should they be forced to pay for it?
I say no government funds should pay for what amounts to murder...if Big Oil/Big Gas want to take over a country, let them pay for it themselves.
I'm all for it!
Last night a bunch of brainless commentators on '60 minutes' including at least one medical doctor stated that the 50 billion dollars spent annually and, as they averred 'needlessly', by Medicare on dying elderly would eventually 'bankrupt our country'. The panic-driven plan of the Democrats reported here reveals the true source of potential bankruptcy: the cost of waging two truly needless wars. Any thinking American already knew that of course.
The real interesting question is "Why do Obie c.s. come with this harebrained plan now"? Of course I cannot be sure but I have a hunch that it has to do with President Obama's recent discovery that it takes one million dollar to maintain one soldier in Afghanistan for one year. What Obie c.s. signal is that President Obama plans to send more troops to Afghanistan but 'without increasing the national debt'.
America has never won a war we did not create a war tax to pay for. You might find war repugnant but there are much worse things than war.
as you speak about this being for 'big oil' what kind of transpiration do you use? What fuels the power in your house? What heats the water?
If you are not part of the cure, you are part of the problem.
Then I hope you don't pay any taxes whatsoever. I have not paid any taxes in the USA since 2000.
Worse things than war? Of course if you are on the receiving end of the war nothing could be worse than a painful, un-necessary, un-just, un-timely death.
If you profit from war, then yeah it could be a lot worse.
you do not pay taxes?
Is that not illegal?
I am a soldier and have been for 22 years, I doubt any one here is more anti-war than I am, however that does not negate the fact of what would happen to Afghans if the taliban take over again
have you seen what Code Pink says about the war in Afghanistan?
http://codepink4peace.org/blog/category/codepinkcampaigns/afghanistan-codepinkcampaigns/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1006/p06s10-wosc.html
War, while a terrible thing is not the most terrible thing. I know, I am a Soldier and have been for 22 years. None of you is more anti war than I am. I bet that sounds odd doesn't it? The fact of the matter is this, if we pull out of Afghanistan it will not stop killing, and it will facilitate a sectarian war the likes of which has never been seen. We ignored a totalitarian goverment that committed atrocities not unlike what Hitler did in the 1930s and 1940s. The only reason the Taliban (and others) did not kill more is their own lack of resources and organization.
Women will be denied health care and education and killed out right if they attempt to get either.
men will be forced to be educated by the taliban, if they are Pushtu, if not they have no rights, not even to own a automobile. People will be hung, shot and butchered.
Music will be banned http://www.rawa.org/music.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Art will be forbidden
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/11/nc/ht11nc.htm
Even something you appreciate every day that keeps you safe, forecasting the weather that will keep millions informed and safe will be banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Meteorological_Authority
No, they do not want us there
http://www.rawa.org/rawa.html
but even the most anti American non-jehadist knows they need us there,
I have been there twice now
David
My hat is off to you for acting upon your convictions. You have put your body in harms way. I served my time during the Vietnam era; 4 years in the Navy. I marched in WashDC in protest in 1972 while still active. We have no business in someone else's country "helping" them change their culture, religion, or government. That is THEIR business. If they had been left alone they might have found their own path. Unfortunately, other powers have attempted throughout history to "help" them by arming them, siding with them, invading them, attacking them, etc. Nothing has gotten better. If we have to be there for them to act a certain way, and if we leave they will kill each other, do we have to stay there forever? Will Afghanistan and Iraq become our 51st and 52ND states? And, if they do become states, will we ignore the collapse of their infrastructure and health care like here at home in order to begin making Pakistan our 53rd state? Where does it all end, when the whole world has become the United States? When do we allow others to seek their own destinies? I have a son who has recently enlisted in the Mo. National Guard. Not for any patriotic reason particularly, but because he needed a job! This war economy is a cancer on our society, economically, morally, physically and spiritually. We cannot support humanity and destroy it simultaneously. It doesn't matter if it's the Taliban, or a drone kills a child to it's parents.
not a matter of changing culture, we do not do that. Do not take in to full account what you read we do there. Some people that post about our actions have their own agenda.
No, we do not stay there for ever, God no, we do stay until Afghans can be a self determinate state and not a failed state. We failed the Afghans in 1990 and it allowed a nasty cancer to grow and destroy many people.
Remember the poorest American has it much better than the richest Afghan.
Thanks for serving when you did
David, you are a "good soldier" because you repeat the War Machine line.
You asked us to look at what Code Pink says and gave us the link...?
Code Pink is right! Life is worse now after your invasion and life was even better under Russian control.
Life was better here in the USA before your invasion also.
If you really believe in what you say you would be trying to end War not the wrong fight for "good intensions" that give evil results.
So what is worse than War...
Conquest, Famine, Death? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse
Do they teach you in the military that one scourge of man is worth fighting for over another... or do you make this stuff up?
So even if you can dig up something worse than war in your mind which you haven't said, does that justify war for you?
Congratulations.
If you don't mind advertising, what does your legal liability on that look like? Are you somewhere in the black or grey economy, just under the water, just a step above the revenooers, or how do you manage this?
Lots of folks don't pay taxes because they don't make enough to even have to file.
But, Senator McCain bragged last year that he has take home pay of $3 Million and Senator Kyl $2 Million besides the money they both get in bribes. All the senators and congressmen should pay their share of these wars since they voted for them! Many senators are given millions from those special interests like the insurance & drug industries to favor them. Be sure to get them to pay their share!
There should be NO MORE funding of this illegal, pointless war, even if there is a surtax on the rich to pay for it. Suppose Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Donald Trump all agreed to kick in billions to accommodate McChrystal's foolish belief that 40 or 50,000 more troops will accomplish the impossible and morally bankrupt mission he and Obama both pray for. Would that make it all OK? Will Afghans and Pakistanis think it's fine that they're being slaughtered mercilessly, since now we're funding the murder with a surtax on the rich? Does Obey or Levin give a rat's ass about this inconvenient aspect of their proposal? Not bloody likely. To them it's apparently just a matter of where the money's coming from. And this is supposed to appease the Afghans? Imagine having a Congress that had even a vestige of a moral conscience. It's like imagining rattlesnakes building rocket ships.
It's only fair to offer the rich a choice. Send your children to fight, go yourself, or pay the surtax.
This would be pretty difficult for the GOPers to have a hissy fit about without being seriously compromised, but with the help of the MSM and the Democrats letting them frame the context, they will undoubtedly find some way to oppose the tax without opposing the war. But one would hope that people realize that the war has to be paid for and since the biggest proponents for it are those benefiting from it, asking them to pay for it may just tip the scales the other direction.
While people argue about the cost of healthcare, Representative Obey is making this timely point to make people think:
"If we have to pay for the healthcare bill, we should pay for the war as well, by having a war surtax."
We can't judge one's position on war according to income. There are those making $200,000 who are offended that their tax money funds these wars, while there are those making far less who are gung-ho for war. Meanwhile, there are ledgers that demonstrate which companies truly profit and have a vested interest in continuous war.
Who should pay the surtax?
We never fought one war, much less two at the same time, on a credit card. We never sent the same young people back, if they survived one horrifying tour of duty, then again and again until their psyches were shattered.
Yes, to give the president the cover he might want, just insist that taxes be made realistic, but MORE IMPORTANT, DEMAND THAT THE DRAFT BE REINSTITUTED. If the generals need scores of thousands, or eventually hundreds of thousands of additional fighters, and if we think it is inescapable to send them, spread the burden to the entire population.
Congress won't consider raising taxes, but how will they respond to the call for a draft?
abnsmith -- "Remember the poorest American has it much better than the richest Afghan." That's a truly ignorant statement. Over the past decade, the life expectancy of Americans in poverty has fallen well below that of those in the modern nations, and the infant mortality rate of America's poor now actually surpasses that of some Third World countries. Americans can and do die from poverty today. Remember, there is no longer an entitlement to basic aid for the poor.
Try living on the streets for a month. At any time, you can be attacked, beaten, stabbed, shot. There are guns, there's violence, you might get thrown out into traffic or have your throat slit just for the sport of it. It's close to being open season on the poor because, after all, what are the odds of anyone bothering to arrest you for it? There actually are people who attack/kill the homeless just for "something to do." While homelessness in the US has increased significantly, homeless shelters have systematically been shut down, so one is very much at the mercy of anyone and anything out there -- and believe me, there is little mercy for the poor. The poorest live in a constant state of fear in the US.
Ever notice those occasional newspaper fillers, usually a single-paragraph long, put on the last page, stating something like, "Body of homeless man/woman found..." And that's more notice than our homeless dead usually get.
So, perhaps you can explain how the poorest American is better off than the richest Afghani.