  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Quickest Way to End the WarPosted on Oct 5, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Would conservatives and Republicans support the war in Iraq if they had to pay for it? This is the immensely useful question that Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, put on the table this week by calling for a temporary war tax to cover President Bush’s request for $145 billion in supplemental spending for Iraq. The proposal is a magnificent way to test the seriousness of those who claim that the Iraq war is an essential part of the “global war on terror.” If the war’s backers believe in it so much, it should be easy for them to ask taxpayers to put up the money for such an important endeavor. Obey makes the case pointedly. “Some people are being asked to pay with their lives or their faces or their hands or their arms or their legs,” he said in an interview this week. “If you’re going to ask for that, it doesn’t seem too much to ask an average taxpayer to pay thirty bucks for the cost of the war so we don’t have to shove it off on our kids.” Or as Obey said in a statement, “I’m tired of seeing that only military families are asked to sacrifice in this war.” Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership ran away from this idea as fast as you could say the words “Republican majority.” That, of course, is what Democrats are afraid of. “Just as I have opposed the war from the outset,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “I am opposed to a war surtax.” Obey doesn’t hold this against his leadership. “They don’t want to be demagogued by the White House when they have other fish to fry,” he said. But it’s a shame that Democrats remain so defensive on the tax issue that they aren’t willing to bring this proposal to the floor. What if the price for passing President Bush’s supplemental appropriation were a tax to cover its costs? What if opponents of the war voted no because they are against Bush’s policy, and Republicans voted no because they think low taxes are more important than national security, as they define it? That’s an aggressive way to frame anti-tax “no” votes, but it’s also accurate. If a war appropriations bill with a tax included went down to overwhelming defeat, wouldn’t that tell us something about the depth of commitment to this war? The Obey surtax, co-sponsored by Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and John Murtha, D-Pa., envisions a sliding scale of roughly 2 percent on the taxes paid by lower-income Americans and up to 15 percent on upper-income Americans. Since wars are waged, in principle, on behalf of the entire country, this is the rare Democratic proposal that does not put the entire burden of taxation on the rich. The plan does not ask for a tax to cover the $45 billion in Bush’s supplemental request to pay for the war in Afghanistan. “There are legitimate expenditures on which we don’t mind sharing the costs with future generations,” Obey says, noting that there is a broad consensus that the fight in Afghanistan is in the long-term interest of the country. It might be less gimmicky to pay for both wars now, but some revenue is better than nothing. Ah, you say, but this is just symbolic politics. I don’t think so, but let’s assume it is. This idea is far more serious than the utterly empty fight Bush is about to pick with Congress over a $21 billion to $23 billion difference in spending in a federal budget that totals $2.7 trillion. Here is a president who signed one bloated spending bill after another—as long as they were passed by a Republican Congress—posing as a fiscal conservative now that Democrats hold the majority. He’s so tough and determined that he’s also drawn the line on ... children’s health care. Bush has often let it be known that he hates “small ball” politics. But there is nothing smaller or more trivial than a budget fight over a difference that any responsible president could easily resolve in negotiations with Congress. War spending aside, Obey says it would take no more than a week to reach a reasonable compromise on the overall budget if the White House would just engage. And if the president believes in this war so much and doesn’t want to raise taxes, let him propose the deep spending cuts it would take to cover the costs. Then Bush would show how much of a priority he believes this war is—and he wouldn’t be playing small ball. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Bush Gets Tightfisted With Sick Kids Next item: Sen. Clinton Beefs Up the Competition Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By Conservative Yankee, October 12, 2007 at 5:14 am # 106384 by cyrena on 10/11 at 6:20 pm “So now, you’re not even a wing-nut. We might even be able to hang our flags out again.” Just two things that might change your mind…
By cyrena, October 11, 2007 at 6:20 pm # #106195 by Conservative Yankee ...."Done Yesterday, now I’m a Democrat for the first time since they shot Robert Kennedy."… Hot Damn CY!! You have just made my day (10-11-07)! I am so proud of you/us. We’re in the same box now!! I’m sending you a hug. (you can always change your mind later) even when you’re skruff. (I liked you then too, and I just don’t picture you as a knuckle-dragging neanderthal). So now, you’re not even a wing-nut. We might even be able to hang our flags out again. You GO! - CY - YEY!!
By Conservative Yankee, October 11, 2007 at 4:34 am # 106125 by Ernest Canning on 10/10 at 5:21 pm “CY, better hurry up and change party registration to Dem if you want to vote for Dennis.” Done Yesterday, now I’m a Democrat for the first time since they shot Robert Kennedy. BUT In Maine, you can re’reg on primary day, so I had PLENTY of time.
By Conservative Yankee, October 10, 2007 at 10:17 am # “...snow balls melting into the sunset. Money talks for money’s sake.” It doesn’t speak for me… Kucinich 08
By NYT 9237723, October 10, 2007 at 7:55 am # The reason to vote for Kucinich in the primaries is to demonstrate, once again, to the Democratic Party the need to formulate an exit plan from Iraq and impliment it before 2013. I doubt that Kucinich will win any primaries, but a strong showing would give him more clout in crafting planks in the Democratic platform. In the amazing event that he might win the Democratic nomination, he could win the election, not because he’s well known, but because his nomination would saddle the Republicans with this war. The American people want out, and he’s been against it all along.
By Conservative Yankee, October 10, 2007 at 5:12 am # 105911 by Ernest Canning on 10/09 at 8:48 pm CY, an especially good, scientific approach to the issue is provided by Steven F. Freeman, PhD & Joel Bleifuss in “Was the 2004 presidential election stolen? exit polls, election fraud and the official count.” In the meantime, heed the words of the infamous dictator, Joseph Stalin: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” It is HArd to “steal” a New Hampshire election, away from the larger Urban areas. The votes are counted (paper ballots) as follows. There are two representatives from both major political Parties. Parties (such as the Greens) may also provide representatives if they wish. The locked ballot box is filled by voters while these representatives stand or sit next to it. There are two locks, and each major party has a key to only one. the ballot counting is done in a public arena, and anyone can challenge the way the votes are counted. a challenge results in a “contested” ballot which is still counted. The contested ballots only become an issue IF there are enough of them to “swing” the election. The ballots passed through the official counters (Republican rep, Democratic Rep, Green rep, etc. they are each tallies the ballot as they read it. If the tallies are different at the finish, the votes are recounted. in the tallies are different, there is NO official count until the tallies are synchronized. I have counted Ballots in Franconia, and I can tell you it’s a long tedious process. Much easier to “fix” an election in Manchester, Nashua, or Rockingham County, where the voting is done by machine. As I said once before, the process is as good as the people. Stalin was only one. the Russians were 175 Million… Someone must have supported him?
By Conservative Yankee, October 9, 2007 at 7:44 am # 105757 by Ernest Canning on 10/09 at 7:12 am “CY, the question is whether voters “lied” to pollsters in the 2002 NH election or whether there was vote tampering.” ...or maybe a little of both. BUT the Manchester ballots (most easily tampered) came in about as expected, it was the outlander ballots from scores of small (under 1200 population) towns that reflected greatest disparity. AND although there is a well documented list of GOP dirty tricks, and even one prosecution resulting in a jail sentence. the New Hampshire voters have a long history of turning elections on their ear. Also while Sununu was elected State wide, the Democrats made inroads into the rock-solid Republican base in the State House. Then (as you probably know) the State Legislature went Democratic in both houses for the first time in 100 years. We’re talking about a very traditionally conservative State here… BUT Conservative or not, New Hampshireites do not like people playing with the vote....and although the National Media missed it, Bill Loeb’s newspaper caught the story (I believe) correctly. The swing to Democrats in 2006 was more about cheating and dishonesty IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, than about “outside influences.” Now we’ll wait for the Democrats to make the same mistake.
By cyrena, October 9, 2007 at 6:25 am # #105708 by Conservative Yankee This time it’s the cell-phone crowd which is being under counted. Polling organizations are blithly running along counting land-line voters, but demographics come into play here too. The Cell population is generally younger, informed by the web, rather than radio or TV, or if TV, outside “traditional” news sources. We could have a serious upset here folks.... IF the US citizens exhibit unsheparded behavior. Thanks CY, for this historical reminder, and the things that we need to keep in perspective. I couldn’t have said it nearly as well. We’re in the same box on this one.
By Conservative Yankee, October 9, 2007 at 4:41 am # Back in ‘48, when Dewey beat Truman (for the presidency) the Roper polling organization made a huge mistake in counting numbers. They did their “polling” by phone. Now probably most don’t remember that long-gone era, but the phone was new “cutting edge” for most people outside urban areas. Where Uncle Bill lived in Goffstown NH. he had to walk a mile to the general store which had a phone. The break down was along Urban/rural voters, and Roper under counted the rural (non-phoned) population, who were overwhelmingly for Truman. This time it’s the cell-phone crowd which is being under counted. Polling organizations are blithly running along counting land-line voters, but demographics come into play here too. The Cell population is generally younger, informed by the web, rather than radio or TV, or if TV, outside “traditional” news sources. We could have a serious upset here folks.... IF the US citizens exhibit unsheparded behavior. From New Hampshire: The folks up there traditionally lie to pollsters. witness the 2002 election which exit polls had Jean Shaheen beating John Sununu 47% 46% (Concord Monitor)and 46% 42% (Univ of NH) Sununu actually won 51% over Shaheen 42% There is only one poll that matters....and it is a ways away!
By Conservative Yankee, October 7, 2007 at 2:43 pm # DC “we are already aware that you are plying the deceptive Republican ploy of advocating splitting the Democrats’ vote if you can’t succeed in shouting everyone down first, CY” Splitting what vote? The vote in the Democratic party primaries? I wouldn’t waste my time. I’ve outlined my opposition to Hill-the-business-shill many times for you. You have chosen to ignore my criticisms in favor of sliming me. Wasted effort, I’m a Republican!
By Conservative Yankee, October 7, 2007 at 10:43 am # 105354 by driving bear on 10/07 at 10:11 am “105335 by Ernest Canning on 10/07 at 7:58 am Actually I’m considering registering Democrat, just so I can vote for Kucinich. I like Ron Paul, but the loony-fringe right-wing-religious-fanatics who have hijacked my party can and will make Paul a non-issue. What’s Madonna’s health care plan like? Add Your Comment |
|
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article