Paying for war

We’ve watched as government spending has increased over the last year at a rate which is the only thing that will never be described by this White House as unprecedented. The word “trillions” slides off the tongues of politicians like honey these days. Every where you turn, there are signs announcing the commencement of some new federal spending – a drive to western Maryland this weekend was punctuated with huge placards introducing me to the wonders of a federally funded guardrail replacement project.

Now, after waiting 94 days for President Obama to make a decision on troop commitments to Afghanistan, Democrats are finally talking about tax increases – apparently because the administration has proposed something that actually falls into the responsibilities of government – defense. The main proponent of a “war tax” is David Obey;

Obey criticized the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on economic grounds and recently proposed a war tax to pay for an escalated war in Afghanistan.

Thought it’s impossible to know Obey’s motives, the tax seems to be less a serious policy proposal and more an effort to call out GOP deficit hawks who abandon their fiscal restraint when it comes to deficit-funded wars. (Obey has similarly called political bluffs in the past.)

Oddly enough, Obey complains that Republicans are demanding that Congress pay for their social programs.

The Hill reports that there is little support for a war tax;

Most senators and representatives pointed to the recession, saying that a tax increase would be poorly timed because it could prolong the economic drought.

“It’s not a good idea to raise taxes in the middle of an economic downturn,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “I do think it needs to be paid for over some budget period. But I don’t like the idea of raising taxes now, at a time of economic weakness. That doesn’t make sense to me.”

But the Washington Post wrings it’s hands over the prospect of an increase in troops without an increases in taxes;

Obama’s proposal would place more than 200,000 troops altogether in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the troop level across both nations averages 75,000 through the next decade, the operations will cost an additional $867 billion — more than the $848 billion health-care legislation the Senate is considering.

As if the Post’s readership doesn’t know that $867 billion is more than $848 billion. Thanks, Washington Post for clearing that up. I wonder if they’ve noticed that “health care” isn’t mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution yet.

It took minutes for Obey to run in circles and proclaim that the sky is falling;

Minutes after Obama finished speaking, Obey issued a statement opposing the troop buildup and warning that the cost of the military efforts “could devour our ability to pay for the actions necessary to rebuild our own economy. We simply cannot afford to shortchange the crucial investments we need in education, job training, healthcare, and energy independence. The biggest threat to our long-term national security is a stunted economy.”

Of course, no one is mentioning that there is a tax hike scheduled for next year, the year that the Bush tax cuts expire. So any increase the Congress imposes on us is in addition to a return to the Clinton tax era – which means that millions who pay no taxes now will get the surprise of their lives when they’re suddenly in a 15% tax bracket.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Congress sucks, Media, Terror War