Skip to main content

Now that the March 1 sequester deadline has come and gone, some Republicans are getting squeamish about the $43 billion in cuts to the Pentagon budget this fiscal year. In the House, GOP leaders have proposed a new spending plan restoring some of the defense spending. Meanwhile in the Senate, Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) want full funding for Defense Department, a budget restoration made possible by slashing the historically small federal workforce by another 10 percent.

But before Republicans can restore $600 billion to the Pentagon budget over the next decade, they still need to pay for the bills for the unfunded wars of the past one. After all, the total price tag for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will reach $3 trillion by 2020. Which is why the time for a bipartisan war tax that will take the dangerous and counterproductive sequester cuts off the table once and for all.

That solution should adhere to three principles: drive (or don't hurt) 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 a war tax beginning in 2015.

The idea is straightforward. By 2020 (as we'll see below), 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 month, 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 the sequester cuts few want 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

  •  Will be interesting when they try to sell Iran War (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    howd, allenjo

    on credit and how deficits don't matter when it comes to war, but only matter when it comes to feeding the poor, healing the sick, respecting the old, educating the young and fixing roads and sewers.  

    They're trying to pay for the Iraq and Afghan war by cutting social security and medicare.  Bush cut taxes while fighting two wars purposely to create the situation we're in right now - disaster capitalism/shock doctrine shit here - create the crisis and then force your desired "cure".  

    As much shit as Pres Obama gets here (often deserved) imagine what McCain/Palin would have did over their four years.  

    I hope if the war machine starts revving up again that Dems push back against it HARD, and one of their tools being an across the board "war tax" to pay for any fighting in real time, not on credit.  Service members families would be exempt of course.  I think the wars went on so long and happened so easily because there was no pain at home to the vast majority of families with no military members in their families.

    If you're not talking about what billionaire hedgefund bankster Peter G. Peterson is up to you're having the wrong conversations.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:14:32 PM PST

  •  War tax, carbon tax & financial transactions tax (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allenjo, Simplify, howd

    would be a good trifecta to start offsetting the costs of the corporate malfeasers who've led us into perpetual war, economic calamity, and climate chaos.

    There's plenty of good reasons for a carbon tax, and Europe is on the verge of imposing
    a financial transaction tax which should be duplicated in the U.S.:

    Some in Europe hope that the lure of that cash might eventually tempt Americans. Europe thinks it can bring in 31 billion euros — about $41 billion at current exchange rates — from the tax. The United States presumably could collect more if it adopted a similar tax, including some of the money that will now go to European countries.

    Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

    by willyr on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:58:48 PM PST

  •  Funny How The War Pushers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allenjo, Simplify

    ... have no problem asking US service people to pay for the war with their lives and yet these same people are the ones most vehemently against having Americans pay a 10% surtax.

    As Smedley Butler, the US Marine Major General wrote in his essay, "War is a Racket":

    WAR is a racket. It always has been.

    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives...


    Poor man wants to be rich. Rich man wants to king. And the king ain't satisifed until he rules everything. B.Springsteen

    by howd on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:59:13 PM PST

  •  And put the war on the regular budget (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1BQ, howd

    instead of pretending it's a surprise emergency, as the Republicans did throughout the Bush presidency. At least the Democrats have the bulk of the war funding accounted for in the regular budget now.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:48:26 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site