Here is what the Chairman of the House Appropriations committee said yesterday:
"If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."
Damn right. That is exactly why we need war surtax as Obey, Murtha, and Larsen have proposed.
"Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for," the lawmakers said in a statement. "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."
No matter if you are in favor of the war or against it, there should be no question that a war should be paid for by the country that fights it. So far, this war is only being paid for by borrowing from foreign governments and in the blood equity of the small fraction of the population that actually does the fighting.
EVERYONE should pay for war. Poor. Middle class. Rich. Especially the rich.
Should the bill pass, the surtax would come into effect in 2011 and would pay off war costs from the previous year. Democratic lawmakers previously introduced a similar measure to fund the Iraq War that failed to pass through Congress.
The measure has attracted eight co-sponsors, all of whom are House Democrats: Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank (Mass.), Anna Eshoo (Calif.), Sam Farr (Calif.), Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairman Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), Betty McCollum (Minn.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), and Linda Sanchez (Calif.)
"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," the three sponsors said.
President Obama should be as straightforward about the costs of war as his great predecessor. FDR spoke time and time again in his fireside chats about what was necessary for the public to bear. Like this one:
First. we must, through heavier taxes, keep personal and corporate profits at a low reasonable rate.
Second. We must fix ceilings on prices and rents.
Third. We must stabilize wages.
Fourth. We must stabilize farm prices.
Fifth. We must put more billions into War Bonds.
Sixth. We must ration all essential commodities which are scarce.
Seventh. We must discourage installment buying, and encourage paying off debts and mortgages.
I'd support a war tax even if we ended both wars TODAY. I'd support it to pay off what we've borrowed for war over the last eight years. The Bush Administration was terribly irresponsible. But if that is politically impossible, surely it is reasonable to expect to pay for war in a "new era of responsiblity."
All the important leaders of our government, from President Obama on down, have all said that the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Paying for it, Mr. President is ALSO a necessity. I know he wont tell the American people to go shopping. But neither should he tell our Treasury to go borrowing, passing the bill for war on to a future generation. The military can't pass the deaths, maimings, and family instability on. The innocent civilians/collateral damage can't pass on their ruined lives. Nor should the American citizen, in whose name any war is fought, not bear the burden of war. We should be happy all we are required to give is money.