Today I was just thinking about the possible US military attack on Syria. There will be a variety of opinions on it. Mine is mostly that it's a bad idea unless, perhaps, we have nearly every other democratic nation on the planet also participating in it. Perhaps. And yes, the President has a window where he can take action and this always provides a risk of an extended engagement. And I was also ruminating how again, like every conflict of any size since World War II, congress will not declare war on Syria just as they have not declared war anymore on any conflict over the last 70 plus years.
This led me to considering: why do we not see liberals, and anyone else opposed to most wars and military police actions which will include most libertarians and a minority of conservatives, not lobbying at least the Democratic party to begin trying to create a new, simple law which would reduce such incidences to a minimum? Whereby anytime we send troops anywhere to engage in any sort of conflict, be it a bombing of Syria, or Libya, incursions into places like Grenada, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, wherever, there would be automatic taxes imposed on the American people from that start date to pay for it. Even when we don't declare war. Even when only the President acts. And that tax would continue until all troops were back on US soil. Or a declared end of conflict when regarding naval and air forces. This would probably not including for practical purposes I suppose keeping a tiny well defined minimum of troops, trainers and advisers, though not including drones or other such implements of war.
This should be a progressive tax. It should be at least 5% minimum, to start, on the top 10% of earners in this country. It should fall off from there but even at the lowest levels of income we should at least have a .5% increase. I suppose most will say that the lowest income earners should be exempt, and frankly I think at the lowest levels it should be mostly a nuisance of a tax on the poorest and not an economic drain on them. Why even some of the lowest earners, when often they are the most likely to sacrifice in times of war? The idea of this tax is not only to pay as you go for any military strikes (and aftermath thereof) but to put pressure on the administration and congress from all of the public to choose carefully as when to take any military action in the first place. Because obviously, this would put a burden on the entire country. And it would pressure any party in power to end our part in that conflict as quickly as possible. There should also be a special loophole free taxation on any defense contractor, company, or tax paying organization which profits from a conflict.
The minimum initial tax is to be adjusted within the first month upward as needed to be a fully pay-as-you-go tax. It would not be allowed to be kept as a supplemental budget but as a special separate war tax added on to the budget. The progressive adjustments from there may be limited to be paid by the upper 25% or so of taxpayers. The rate of taxation to cover the military effort will be decided by independent audits by the CBO and perhaps other entities as well. This figure will not be disputed and must, by law, be required to be paid no later than by the next reporting quarter and will continue to be paid thru the final quarter even if the conflict has already ended.
In fact, I suspect this is a law if enacted might do away with nearly all but the most pressing military actions. I'm sure that with credible actions, such as an attack on the US, our allies, or in situations such as Afghanistan just after 9/11, most people will be willing to make those sacrifices and are less likely to see such taxation as unnecessary (this is the argument I've made with conservatives who suggest that we won't fight when we need to. "Of course we would" I respond. "Would you be against such action in a strike against us simply because it might cause you some financial distress? Or do you love your country more than that?" The response has always been either grudging agreement or their uncomfortable sputtering without an actual denial).
Insisting that our representatives support and enact such a measure might also be a powerful test as to where their loyalties lie; to the people or the corporations which support most of them. This would also serve as a cap on executive power, making such military actions limited and subject to immediate congressional scrutiny. Congress might exert all possible pressure against a president who wants to engage in ill-advised action, along with civilian pressure against it. It may even change how we argue about military action in this country when people like the 101'st Fighting Keyboardists now have financial skin in the game. And it would limit incurring huge deficits which we see are of special concern to Republicans. Well, at least when Democrats are running the country. But hey, that makes it a preemptive strike against their economic worries and should help them sleep more soundly at night. Win-win for them and the rest of us, right?
I would appreciate any additional critiques, positive or negative, regarding this. I am not suggesting that this tax would kick in when we use the military strictly for humanitarian aid though I'm not sure how we'd determine those parameters of what humanitarian aid would be and what possible loopholes might exist. Are there technical details in what I've suggested that wouldn't work or would need to be different? Or drone attacks? Would this include special training or monetary aid to various rebel actions? I'm not sure that would fly, but I wouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Again any thoughts would be appreciated. But I hope that you might also consider an America with such a law put into place and how we might make it part of the platform of progressive governance.