No Free Lunches
| Tue Nov. 24, 2009 11:27 AM PST
If President Obama decides to escalate our presence in Afghanistan, Congressman Dave Obey (D-WI) is threatening to propose that it be paid for by a "war surtax." After all, Republicans 
keep telling us that the deficit is a big problem, and if that's the case then the war ought to be paid for. Stan Collender writes today that this isn't the first time Obey has tried this tack:
In fact, I watched in awe as Obey used this same strategy about 30 years ago when I was a congressional staffer working for a member of the House Budget Committee.
The issue at the time was a balanced budget and the Republican demand that the Democratic majority agree to policy changes that would make it happen. They said they would vote against the budget unless it was balanced.
In response, Obey proposed a balanced budget and forced his colleagues to debate and vote on it. I don't remember all the details of what he proposed, but I'm pretty sure it included the specific program-by-program, across-the-board spending cuts needed to eliminate the deficit.
I have a vivid memory of Obey opening the debate on his balanced budget plan by saying that he was proposing it not because he wanted it to pass but rather because he didn't. He wanted to call everyone's bluff. And he did. The Obey plan got only a handful of votes — including only one or two Republicans — and was overwhelmingly defeated.
Well, I'm sure glad I'm not president right now. But of course, this is one of the whole points of having taxation with representation: it forces people to make tough choices. You want healthcare reform? Figure out how to pay for it and then see if people think it's worth it. A war in Afghanistan? Ditto. Maybe you favor "winning" the war in Afghanistan by sending lots of additional troops over there, but do you still favor it if you know it's going to cost your family $500 per year in additional taxes? Because that's about what the tab is. There's no free lunch.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Not a bad time to raise taxes anyhow
Submitted by g. powell on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 11:56 AM PST.
The most persuasive argument against Obey's good idea is that raising taxes now would be bad macro policy and would hurt the economy at a critical point.
But I think now would be a fine to time have a hike in the income tax, especially for those at higher marginal rates. Right now gold prices are reaching breaking new records, which is a pretty good indicator that the assets of the wealthy are not being used productively. So raising taxes on that segment shouldn't have much of destimulative impact. In fact, it would help the U.S. put its fiscal house in order while also enabling to engage in prolonged stimulus. A strong signal of fiscal responsibility wouldn't be a bad idea.
A better idea. Taxing the
Submitted by Caspian of the Lake on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 2:45 PM PST.
A better idea. Taxing the 50% that pay no federal income take and eliminating the free lunch.
Deceptive
Submitted by Douglas McClean (not verified) on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 7:39 PM PST.
That talking point is deceptive. That 50% pays about the same effective rate as "the rest of us" in combined income + social security/medicare taxes.
Medicare is projected to
Submitted by Alejandro (not verified) on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 12:01 PM PST.
Medicare is projected to consume half the federal budget in the 2040's and nearly the entire federal budget by 2082: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662 Simply phasing it out and getting the government out of the healthcare business would pay for nearly everything else. But, of course, you don't want to admit that.
Eliminating people upon
Submitted by g. powell on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 12:17 PM PST.
Eliminating people upon retirement would pay for nearly everything else. But, of course, you don't want to admit that.
oh yeah
Submitted by optical weenie on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 12:19 PM PST.
Alejandro,
So the ncpa, which is a beehive of republicans, health insurance CEO's, and fronted by the WSJ, predicts that IN 73 YEARS Medicare will gobble up all our tax dollars. Wow.
I'll be 124 years old by then. I won't be caring at that point.
Remember Bill Sparkman, the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 12:17 PM PST.
Remember Bill Sparkman, the census worker found hung, with the word FED scrawled on his body. Remember how this was a sign of the uprising nutcakes of the right?
Guess what?
He faked a suicide.
I guess Kevin's going to apologize to Glenn Beck now.
If Beck wants an apology, let him ask for it...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 2:44 PM PST.
But he won't because he doesn't want people knowing he raped and killed a young girl in 1990.
gb1990.com
Didn't happen.
Submitted by koyaanisqatsi (not verified) on Fri Nov. 27, 2009 1:04 PM PST.
I hope you read the entire gb1990.com Web page. They make it clear that Glenn Beck did not rape and kill a young girl. I "get" the intentions of that Web site, but I don't want to be part of it. And neither should you. NO! I'm not a supporter of Glenn Beck.
The difference is that
Submitted by John Hansen (not verified) on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 5:07 PM PST.
The difference is that defense of the country is a legitimate Federal responsibility. Providing health care is not.
Tell that to rest of
Submitted by g. powell on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 5:14 PM PST.
Tell that to the rest of developed world.
wasn't there a document that
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 6:11 PM PST.
wasn't there a document that said something like: provide for the common Defence and general Welfare." you know, The US Constitution
ouch, now that hurts, doesn't it. i guess if you don't read, you can't be called on missing the facts.
better luck next time, ignorance is not an excuse.
I don't suppose you might
Submitted by nepeta on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 8:48 PM PST.
I don't suppose you might like to consider the 'general welfare' part as a directive for healthcare for all. I can't think of anything else as important to the 'general welfare' of a country.
the US Constitution says a
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 6:13 PM PST.
the US Constitution says a few words about this
"provide for the common Defence and general Welfare".
ignorance is not an accepted excuse.
Obey was in Congress 30
Submitted by Anonymous12 (not verified) on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 6:32 PM PST.
Obey was in Congress 30 years ago?
That's what we get for not having term limits.
I doubt Obey would have the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Nov. 24, 2009 6:53 PM PST.
I doubt Obey would have the nerve to try that tactic today. He'd have every implacable Republican and Blue Dog Vichy Dem voting for his proposals so fast he wouldn't know what hit him.
Senate rules
Submitted by RobertWaldmann on Wed Nov. 25, 2009 12:02 AM PST.
If I understand correctly, any one Senator can make it necessary to get 60 votes on this one. Any bill which would increase the deficit is out of order according to the rules of the Senate. To waive that rule takes 60 votes. This is not a filibuster, but a point of order. If no one mentions the fact that spending more without raising taxes adds to the deficit, 50 votes plus Biden are enough.
So does any senator agree with Obey ? I'm looking at you Bernie.
What's another tax by any name?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Nov. 27, 2009 4:08 AM PST.
The American dollar is now basically worthless. After paying my equity line plus a little extra (no mortgage) I'm around the poverty line. I grow and can my vegetables so I can actually eat. I guess the IRS can now take $500 worth of my surplus blood to fund the escalation. I can produce more if they don't take it all at once. Of course, I'm sure 'our' government will fund another bailout for the wealthy so, lets see...of course my internal organs should be worth something. Like you blog.
No one talks about the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Nov. 27, 2009 5:00 AM PST.
No one talks about the immorality of war. Why do we think killing people will ever work. We dance around the issue and continue to fatten the confers of the war machine,,we are killing ourselves. Stop it-Now.
50% tax a great idea!
Submitted by Scott Baker (not verified) on Fri Nov. 27, 2009 6:47 AM PST.
One of the reasons Bush was able to "sell" America on these two wars is that that required no sacrifices on civilians' part. We should not only tax for it - like we have every other major war - but reinstitute the draft too. You'll be amazed how quickly we'll pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq then.
"One of the reasons Bush was
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Nov. 27, 2009 7:09 PM PST.
"One of the reasons Bush was able to "sell" America on these two wars is that that required no sacrifices on civilians' part. We should not only tax for it - like we have every other major war - but reinstitute the draft too. You'll be amazed how quickly we'll pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq then."
I'd be amazed if anything the American people wanted or demanded was even briefly acknowledged at this point. Also think that a "war tax", once initiated, would never be rescinded.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
