Skip to main content

Barring a last minute miracle compromise, on March 1 the first year of the $1.2 trillion, decade-long budget sequester will begin. With few exceptions, that's a development neither party wants to come to pass. For Democrats, the sequester doesn't just mean the potential loss of 750,000 jobs in 2013 alone, but slashing non-defense discretionary spending and economic investment by the federal government to historic lows. For Republicans, the prospect of defense cuts which would return the Pentagon to its 2007 budget level is anathema. All the while, the continued brinksmanship over the national debt saps consumer and business confidence, thereby putting the fragile U.S economic recovery at risk.

All of which is why it's time to make a deal that will take the dangerous and counterproductive sequester off the table once and for all. That solution should adhere to three principles: drive economic growth now, reduce the debt later and require everyone to sacrifice. Make that four: achieving peace and prosperity over the next decade means finally paying for the wars of the last one. That's why both parties should agree to the War Tax of 2015.

The idea, as we'll see below, is straightforward.

By 2020, the estimated costs of America's post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will total roughly $3 trillion. But not only were most Americans not asked to fight our wars, none was ever required to pay for it. Far from it. In fact, George W. Bush became the first modern president to cut taxes during war time. (After September 11, you may recall, Bush urged Americans to go shopping and "get down to Disney World.")  With his 2009 stimulus package, 2010 tax compromise and 2013 fiscal cliff deal, Barack Obama became the second. Beginning in 2015--that is, when the economic recovery is producing faster growth and lower unemployment--all working Americans should pay war tax large enough to generate at least $1 trillion over the ensuing decade.

As the New York Times op-ed page highlighted last week, the idea of a temporary war tax is not a new one. But as the Washington Post explained in an August 2011 article on Congressman Jim McGovern's efforts to encourage the debt "Super Committee" to institute one, a war tax could take a variety of forms:

For the Vietnam War, even though President Lyndon B. Johnson had said the country could have "guns and butter" for a time, in 1968 Congress passed a 10 percent surcharge, which meant 10 percent of owed income tax was added to the bill to pay for the war...

A 10 percent tax surcharge, similar to the one during the Vietnam War, would bring in roughly $112 billion if applied in 2012, according to Alan D. Viard, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and former senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. That would just about cover the expected $116 billion for war costs in 2012.

Although Viard said he was not endorsing such a step, he said the surtax would not affect the 40 percent of American households that pay no income tax at all and would add just one-tenth to rates of those who do pay income tax.

When McGovern and Reps. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) suggested a 2 percent surcharge for middle-income taxpayers and up to 15 percent for the wealthiest four years ago, even the House Democratic leadership did not support them. Some Republicans accused them of using the taxes to generate opposition to the wars.

Whether a flat or progressive, rate hike or income tax surcharge, or a national sales tax, affording our future defense bills requires means paying off our old ones.

And to be sure, we've run up a big tab.

By 2020, the direct cost to U.S. taxpayers could reach $3 trillion. In March 201, the Congressional Research Service put the total cost of the wars at $1.28 trillion, including $806 billion for Iraq and $444 billion for Afghanistan. But that does not include the dramatic expansion in the Pentagon's baseline defense budget. Even without war spending, the Defense Department's actual core budget nearly doubled from $297 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $528 billion in FY 2011 ten years later:

(Note that the McClatchy chart above reflects defense spending in 2013 dollars.)

But in addition to the roughly $1.5 trillion tally for both conflicts through the theoretical 2014 American draw down date in Afghanistan, the U.S. faces staggering bills for veterans' health care and disability benefits. An analysis by the Center for American Progress estimated the total projected total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans' health care and disability could reach between $422 billion to $717 billion. Reconstruction aid and other development assistance represent tens of billions more, as does the additional interest on the national debt. And none of the above counts the expanded funding for the new Department of Homeland Security.

Now, a 10 year war tax beginning in 2015 and ending in 2025--even one only paying off a third of America's so-called global war on terror--will not please many on either side of the aisle. President Obama, after all, promised not to increase income taxes on American families earning under $250,000 a year. Despite the total federal tax bite as a percentage of the economy being at the lowest levels since the 1950's, Republicans have refused to countenance a dime of new tax revenue. (Instead, GOP leaders like John McCain have called for reducing the already historically small federal workforce by 10 percent, while Lindsey Graham amazingly wants to repeal the deficit-reducing Obama program.)

But at the end of the day, the best alternative to a sequester no one wants may be a deal no one likes. But if Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein posed the existential threat then even greater than the national debt Republicans only decry now, surely a temporary war tax is reasonable way to help pay for both.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So who would pay the War Tax? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Perhaps those who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts?  In other words the 1%?

    It's an interesting idea but the Repugs are not into a compromise, they seem to welcome the economic disaster that the sequester will introduce.

    I am glad that the DoD "top line" is coming down.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 05:37:36 PM PST

    •  Finally! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We know how we got into this mess.
      Bush inherited a budget surplus.  It was not that long ago.  Surely our memories are not that short.

      Clearly, the way out is to undo Bush's disasters.

      As for a war tax, I vote for top marginal rates in the 90 percent range as we've done in previous wars -- considering it's the top tiers who have benefited most.

      And of course, the Republicans won't go for it.  Then smear them with "not serious about the deficit" and "all this deficit talk is just a scam to take more from the middle class and poor" and

      We know how we got in this mess.  Bush inherited a budget surplus.  We need to undo Bush's initiatives that were so disastrous to the budget.  Anything else is disingenuous.

      Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

      by Helpless on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:09:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The sequester was a deal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    proposed by the White House that exchanged spending cuts for a vote to raise the debt ceiling.  It was not a deficit reduction deal -- it was a spending cut deal.

    For the Republicans to give up spending cuts in exchange for tax revenue would mean that they are giving up wht the White House proposed, and gave to them, in the deal in the summer of 2011.  

    It seems to me there's no way that Republicans will agree to give up the spending cuts that they got in that 2011 deal in exchange for tax increases.  In exchange for other spending cuts, yes.  But, if one believes, as they apparently do, that they want to cut federal spending (i.e., reduce federal spending as a percent of GDP), they have no incentive to give up what they got in that 2011 deal in exchange for tax increases.  

    People here can propose all the tax increases they want here.  As long as the Republicans control the House, I think we've seen the last of the tax increases, unless there's overall tax reform that lowers rates in exchange for ending some deductions/exemptions and raises some revenue (as Simpson Bowles proposed).  

  •  This is not going to happen, but I agree it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, cynndara

    needs to be talked about. The history of 'free wars' should be faced. They aren't free at all. Nor is hegemonic power. A nation cannot make a grown up decision about either unless it can avoid pretending that these things do not come with a very large price tag. That is exactly what the USA has done for a decade now.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:16:59 PM PST

  •  This isn't a serious proposition (0+ / 0-)

    in terms of what can be passed.  But it is a very serious proposal in terms of what would actually fix the problems generated by a decade of profligate Pentagon spending.  As such, it SHOULD be proposed, and defended, before the inevitable Republican scuttling.  If we can't fix the problems they've caused, we can certainly make them own them.  And while the mythical "average citizen" can be confused by talk of soaring deficits and the largely imaginary Debt, they are perfectly capable of understanding that most of that Debt was run up on a Republican credit card to pay for Republican wars, and that the Republicans want to pay off that debt by appropriating THEIR Social Security pensions.  Take it to the People, and you might be surprised at the answer.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site