A War Surtax?

by: Richard Allen Smith

Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 11:47:14 AM EST


Anyone else think this is an interesting idea?

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, Armed Services Committee Chairman John Murtha, and Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson, and House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank have all signed on to the "Share the Sacrifice" Act, which would impose a war surtax starting in 2011 (in order to allow more time for economic recovery):

   "For the last year, as we've struggled to pass healthcare reform, we've been told that we have to pay for the bill - and the cost over the next decade will be about a trillion dollars. Now the President is being asked to consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which proponents tell us will take at least a decade and would also cost about a trillion dollars. But unlike the healthcare bill, that would not be paid for. We believe that's wrong," said Obey, Murtha and Larson. "Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for."

   "The only people who've paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families," they added. "We believe that if this war is to be fought, it's only fair that everyone share the burden. That's why we are offering legislation to impose a graduated surtax so that the cost of the war is not borrowed."
[...]
Essentially, below the $150,000 level, the 15 percent bracket for a family, there would be an increase of one percent of your current level, so for most people that would be 15.15 percent. Separate changes would happen between the $150-$250,000 income level and above $250,000, which would be set by the president depending on his eventual decision on what to do in Afghanistan; currently, the war costs about $68 billion a year, but that could increase if the White House decides to send more troops or spend more money on development projects.

These members of Congress raise a good point.  Since the beginning of the post-9/11 overseas contingency operations, criticism of the wars from the point of view of fiscal conservatism has been rare. Never in the history of the United States have tax cuts been implemented in a war time economy, until the Bush (43) Administration. Wars cost money. Whether all citizens who live under the protection of the American armed forces should share in the sacrifice of men and women in uniform is a fair consideration.

Richard Allen Smith :: A War Surtax?
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

A War Surtax? | 7 comments
This is a good idea on two fronts (0.00 / 0)
First, as mentioned, you don't get something for nothing.  If we are going to continue these operations, we have to find a way to pay for them.  We cannot just keep borrowing and borrowing to finance a better life for countries around the world.  

Second, it lets the public know that there are still these operations going on around the world.  As troops and veterans we often assume that others are aware of all that we do.  This is not the case.  I spoke to a 21 year old history major at the University of Utah that thought Baghdad was in Europe.  I've talked to several people who did not know that we still have troops in Afghanistan.  And most of the public have no idea about the missions our troops have fought in the Phillippines and Djibouti.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama


On Taxing the War (0.00 / 0)
This idea is interesting at first, but then fades away after we realize that the monies to fight these wars come from the same (quite empty) pot.  Personally, I'm all for rich folks to pay more taxes -- they pay proportionally more anyway, so let the trend continue.  However, the way to really pay for these wars is simply to reduce current spending (or at least slow it down) on  all/most government programs.  Think of the pork barrel spending in the TARP funding, etc.  Think of the $100 million spent on Mary Landrieu, (D-LA) to buy her vote on the recent Health Care initiative.  Etc, Etc...

You make a good point about "public awareness" of the wars.  A war tax will certainly do that.


[ Parent ]
I like the idea of cutting spending, but the problem I always run into (0.00 / 0)
Is that you are always stepping on someone's toes.  What one person considers to be "pork barrel" another person considers to be necessary.  The $100 million spent on Mary Landrieu was for Medicaid funding.  Anytime we look at cutting spending, we have to think of what we are cutting it from.  Do we lay off some police officers?  Or make teachers take a pay cut?  Or cut spending on fire equipment?  Or cut back on social programs like CHIP, WIC, and HEAT?  

I'm not saying it is impossible, I think it is a good idea.  The problem is just finding where we can cut and how much it will help without harming other needed projects.  After all, we do have a $60 million dollar prison in Afghanistan to fund now.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama


[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
But it should be for All, with funds going where they should have before the Veterans Administration and anything to do with All Veterans, way too much cheering extremely little followup!

But knowing the All won't want it again, but find nothing to complain about defense spending nor intelligence agencies, hit the wealthy, they certainly didn't listen to their own spiel since reagan about how that private wealth was supposed to trickle down and keep the economy growing boundlessly, not to mention those blood money profits especially from two occupations!!

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson


Jim, I doubt any of this money would go towards the VA or veteran benefits (0.00 / 0)
It would be needed to offset costs in Afghanistan, like the new $60 million dollar prison they just unveiled.

By the way, one quick criticism.  You often make very good, relevent points.  But when you use long run-on sentences, capitalize words in the middle of the sentence, or overuse exclamation points, it becomes very difficult to follow what you are saying.  Just a thought.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama


[ Parent ]
I've been for the sur tax since day 1 (0.00 / 0)
Always hated the troops go to war and the rest of you go to the Mall in big gas hawg with a yellow magnetic ribbon on it policy.

Ya' and the fiscal thing of 'supplementals' made it seem like the wars were free since they weren't in the real budget.

The "cost" were hidden with Dover and Arlington closed to the press and  dollars flying unaccounted for.


Cut what? (0.00 / 0)
It is always simple to say "just cut spending". Can you find $200 Billion in excess to cut? Even the $100 million you suggest would cover .05% of the $200 billion needed. Please enumerate the other 99.95% of the $200 billion you are going to cut.

In WWII every citizen knew every day that we were at war. Everyone sacrificed. Now, in the neo-con age, not only do we not share sacrifice but some of us demand to sacrifice even less. It is obscene that we cut taxes in a time of war when some were sacrificing all. Just cut spending. Another person who wants others to do all the sacrificing. Please.


A War Surtax? | 7 comments
VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
  • VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.

    Search

    Advanced Search

    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!

    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox