Yes, we should pay for the surge in Afghanistan
A long-overdue debate has finally erupted over how to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Representative David Obey (D-Wisconsin) has proposed a war surtax to pay for the surge now being contemplated in Afghanistan.
He's drawn support from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. (View his debate with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on ABC here.)
President George Bush has been excoriated for launching a war of choice in Iraq, without taking the time to prepare a post-invasion plan.
But Mr. Bush's other blunder was cutting taxes at the same time that he was ratcheting up a massive global military operation.
It now appears that President Barack Obama has decided to support a similar war policy to Mr. Bush's, by escalating military operations in Afghanistan.
My hope is that Mr. Obama won't propose to carry out this war -- estimated to cost $1 million per year per soldier -- with even more borrowed money.
Put bluntly, Americans should share the sacrifice, through cuts to domestic programs and through increased taxes.
Any other course is irresponsible and dangerously short-sighted.
War is serious business.
If we choose to send our men and women into harm's way, we should at least be willing to open our wallets to support them, on the battlefield and when they return home.
Without a surtax, my fear is that we will rack up another pile of promises -- VA benefits, post-deployment therapy, GI bills for education -- that America can't keep.
Your thoughts? Comment below.
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/30/2009 02:46:00 PM
30 Comments
30 Comments:
And exactly(please describe in less than 10 words) would this"surtax" be? Note; if using the word "rich"(or any synonym) please define.
IMO, every American family that doesn't have a soldier in the fight should pay. Rich, middle class and poor.
-Brian, NCPR
There are limits to everything, including our national resources. We are already deeply in debt--at the national and state levels. Now, more enormous military expenses? To really pay for this military increase directly from taxes, well, it's no chump change. Is this truly necessary? What we want as a nation? More war with unclear goals? Sigh.
I'd love to have this debate NOW. Maybe it'll kill the health care overhaul. With the military price tag and the health care price tag maybe Americans will finally come to their senses.
The surtax should only be on those making more than $250,000 per year or households making more than $350,000 per year. It should be a direct tax on the unadjusted gross income.
President Obama stated his approach to the Afghanistan war during his campaign. By electing him, the American voted to support his approach. Therefore, it is only fitting that it be paid for, by the American people, in a clear and discernable manner.
I appreciate the fact that he has dithered on making a decision in how to proceed instead of shooting from the hip. And, like a good leader, he is considering the cost of his actions and how to properly fund those costs.
So many people get hung up on his spending and increasing of the deficit. He is moving this country in the right direction and the spending is necessary to get through these tough times. Once this country has drank itself sober, they will see that his is the right plan.
Afghanistan, the "Graveyard of Empires." How fitting.
The hubris and macho chest thumping that has led to seven years of mismanagment and neglect, wasted money and loss of life, has come back to haunt us.
Karma.
IMO, what we would have spent trying to peacefully build a nation/state in Afghanistan, would have been miniscule compared to what we have spent trying to build a nation/state with soldiers, bombs and guns...
producing an ever growing list of new enemies.
And now, Mr. Obama, seems poised to repeat the mistakes of his predecessor.
This evening, we must listen closely to the President's address to the nation.
increase spending! cut taxes! Enough of the free lunch Bush/Obama economic philosophy.
Bring back Bill Clinton!
Continuing the war in Afghanistan will be a waste of money no matter what the source. Remember what happened to the Soviet Union there. What would "winning" look like? Isn't there some other approach that can be used?
Every American is paying the bill for the war in Afghanistan.
The bigger problem is the mismanagement of of federal tax dollars in general.
We are supposed to be paying for things like "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence" (preamble to the Constitution quote).
Instead we are running GM, bailing out Goldman Sachs, and in general wasting our hard earned dollars.
No, we don't need to tax the rich to pay for the war. We need to fire the current crowd in government everywhere and get some order in the system.
This is off the thread again.
Perhaps the bailouts have been and are necessary to "insure domestic Tranquility."
The same with other federal programs and efforts. The quest for "justice" has changed since the 1780s. Justice was once the reserve for men of property or station. Today, all citizens and "guests" of the U.S. are entitled to blind justice.
It is obvious that we need to trim back some Federal programs. And IMO, we should enhance others. The trick is in deciding whose well entrenched positions should go.
Just like the Clinton/Gore administration attempted to do.
Oh, the President addresses the nation on Afghanistan, tomorrow night.
Well, IMO we had to go to Afghanistan, (and Iraq but that's for another time). I understand the idea behind trying to establish some sort of non-anti-American gov't there. The problem seems to be the same as in Iraq- they just think differently than we do, they don't seem to want a Republic or Democracy or the things we take for granted. Okay, fine. I can accept that. What I can't accept is the apparent unwillingness of either countries "Gov't" to take charge and establish whatever it is they desire there.
I'd give them 6 months to make the decision. If they want us there then they can pay for us maintaining the "peace". If not we haul butt and bring the guys home. We made it clear we can devastate the country, but we didn't. We can wage total war, but we didn't. We tried being Mr. Politically Correct Nice Guy. I've lost friends and acquaintances in these wars. Enough is enough.
How do we pay for it since my wish will never happen? Well, a surtax has worked before. We just got done paying off the Spanish American war a few years back. Of course we weren't funding a massive health care boondoggle and bailing out every Tom, Dick and Harry then either.
Truth is there's no one left to pay the surtax. And it's only going to get worse.
I make $10,000 per year, and I am appaulled at those who make $50,000 (5x as much as me) demanding taxing those making 5x as much as them, as if they are the arbiters of light.
How can you waste your money on 2 or 3 cell phones, 3 or 4 automobiles, and countless other electronic gadgets that contribute to global warming. You should be ashamed that you make so much money. You can easily live on $10,000 per year. After all, many people in Afghanistan live on 1/10th of that.
I propose a 20% tax on everyone making $50,000 per year or more to fund the war in Afghanistan.
If this sounds ridiculous to you, then you should should consider how ridiculous you sound, demanding a tax on someone who makes 5x more than you, as if that's infinity.
Those inclined to celebrate the good ol' days may recall that EVERYONE contributed/sacrificed when the nation went to war. We lived on ration stamps, we collected scrap metal, we bought war bonds. I even recall squishing little red buttons to make the "oleo" seem more like butter! We don't all support this war and, in truth, that includes me. But guess what: the same has been true of all our fights, beginning with the American Revolution. So, here we are and it's time to pitch in. Again.
Bret4207,
I like your idea of being out of Iraq and Afghanistan in 6 months, or even a year where it is operationally necessary.
Not trying to be snarky, but I do take acception to your comment "We made it clear we can devastate the country, but we didn't."
Please read about the devastation we accomplished with our Shock and Awe. Not to mention our twelve years of sanctions before that. Also read about the destruction of Fallujah by the Marines and Blackwater. I guess devastation, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Ask the average Iraqi citizen if they are better off now than they were before March 23, 2003? In fact, that question has been asked and the answers may surprise you.
If you mean by devastation that we could have nuked 'em, but chose not to, you are quite correct. We didn't nuke 'em.
They should be thankful for that at least don't ya think?
This is a depressing comment thread.
I think $50,000 is a bit low to use as a threshhold for the surtax. In addition, that would go against the campaign promises of President Obama. Of course, if we can use a different word than "tax", it would be acceptable. How about if it was called a surcharge and have the whole administration deny it was a tax? The idea of $250,000 sounds better. We need to tax those evil rich people who got us into this mess. It would be patriotic for them to contribute more.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000; impose green taxes on private jets, yachts, and gas guzzling vehicles; impose a 5% sales tax on goods and services; and a 5% surcharge on incomes over million dollars.
On spending implement modest cost sharing and modest rationing for Medicaid. Implement comparative analysis to find which health care treatments are effective, raise the Social Security age for younger workers, crack down on health care and social services fraud (especially all those people disability with phony back problems), abolish unnecessary duplicative/unnecessary agencies close overseas military bases and enact a Constitutional Amendment creating a federal spending cap.
Extreme steps? Yes but we are facing massive future deficits and extreme measures are needed.
"If we choose to send our men and women into harm's way, we should at least be willing to open our wallets to support them......"
WE?!!
I don't know why we're worried about paying for the pittance Afghanistan is costing us when we're considering spending $45 Trillion on global warming. Apparently there's an untapped source of money we were all unaware of. Add in the cost of Healthcare (revenue neutral...right) and the increasing number of unemployed...I dunno, maybe The Messiah drops gold from his bowels in the White House toilet every morning.
And Bret4207 should know.
His job is bending over to fish them out.
Hey, gold has climbed to something like $1200 an ounce today! I'd take that job.
Way to go Mr. Messiah.
One way to stop paying for these wars is to stop playing in these wars.
Please Mr. Obamam, get us the hell of out these hellish games..sooner rather than later. And right now is none too soon.
If anyone reading this thread, has been or is now, opposed to these wars, please consider joining the peace vigils taking place in Potsdam, at the Post Office corner, every Sat. 11-12.
I forgot to add something I've been saying for years.
The children of our poor
drive "up-armored" hummers into war,
So children of our rich can
drive "up-speakered" hummers
to the store.
Sounds about fair to me.
If I were Dick Cheney.
Bret, that $45 trillion figure is astonishing. Where did you get that? Got a link?
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/06/07/iea-45-trillion-needed-to-cut-co2-emissions-50-by-2050/
I was shocked too. I'd never heard that before yesterday. Those figures go back to 2008, I doubt their reduced. I'll try and get the Copenhagen blurb I heard yesterday that mentions this.....
It refers back to this report I linked. That's a lotta moolah to pay for what a amounts to a religious belief. I know, I know, there's a "Scientific consensus". Odd that there could be a consensus in such a complex issue, especially with the newly discovered "massaging" of the numbers. Follow the money, see where it goes.
Bret4207 said...
I don't know why we're worried about paying for the pittance Afghanistan is costing us when we're considering spending $45 Trillion on global warming... December 1, 2009 5:14 PM
Dear Readers:
Once again another thread led astray by Bret4207.
I do believe that the author of this thread, put at least some thought into its composition and the question he thus posed.
How we ended up discussing 45 trillions and trillions of stars, err, dollars, uh, global warming? What?
How should we pay for the surge in Afghanistan? The question at hand.
Hopefully, this is not too off topic, but while we're discussing paying in dollars for our "surging" into Afghanistan should we not consider what we are paying in lives, limbs and minds?
Let's discuss enacting selective service to make sure that all our nation's children "cowboy up" in support of this never-ending occupation.
If that is what the war-mongers desire in their coldest heart of hearts, "bring it on" - your children that is.
The war machine needs everyone to pitch in.
It is a beast with a bottomless appetite.
Too abstract again, eh? Okay, I'll do it a Franks level. We're currently near or at bankruptcy levels here in the US. It seems ironic to me to worry about just how to pay for Afghanistan when we're considering adding ten's of trillions of dollar to our bill How are we going to pay for those things like Healthcare, climate change, Cap and Trade, etc?
The problem is much bigger than Afghanistan. We can leave Afghanistan tomorrow.
I still don't think they're catching on, Bret.
When they are figuring out how to pay for their lottery tickets, they forget about the payment on the Lexus.
Thanks for the link, Bret.
Actually, $45 trillion over 41 years sounds like an accurate figure to reduce carbon emissions by 50%. It will cost money to undue in that time what we've done over the past 150 years.
I hope we set that goal. Ice fishing and ski season seem to get shorter every year.
Correct me if I missed it, but I didn't see where China, India and other developing countries would be participating in the CO2 reduction. I checked a few other sources and saw nothing about countries other than the USA and the richer European countires paying. Plus, they say we'll need 32 nuclear plants built each year. Does anyone think that will happen here?
The other day I was listending to Randi Rhode's talk show on Air America Radio.
A caller into her show suggested that during the Bush administration, these wars/occupations were never figured into the overall annual Federal budget.
And with several tax cuts for the wealthy our Treasury has had to borrow like a "Lexus" owner playing the lottery?
Well, anyway, we owe Red China a massive debt that our children will be paying off to the communist regime for generations to come.
We, as a nation, must pay for several big ticket items that are in the yearly fiscal budgets.
One huge slice of that pie chart shows that our Department of Defense is a huge consumer of tax dollars.
When we were forever on alert against the Soviet Union in the Fulda Gap across the northern plains of Europe, such expenditures of enormous wealth had at least some semblance of reality. We had to meet the challenges on the world stage.
Today, we have no such world powers threatening to crush us. We are using jumbo elephants attempting to squish a small grouping of pesky flies.
Not very efficient and a huge waste of money.
But there are some in our society who believe that our Pentagon should be as big and bad than all the other armies of the world combined.
It is the only way to maintain empire. And with 148 American military installations around the world (60+ years post WWII) and on every continent, we are, for better or worse, an empire...an empire that needs funding from China to keep our occupations of other lands an ongoing enterprise.
Post a Comment
<< Home