Democratic war tax proponent Obey calls expected troop surge a 'fool's errand'
By Jim Snyder
11/29/09 01:19 PM ET
The Hill
The chief architect of a bill to increase taxes to pay for the Afghanistan war said he didn't believe adding troops would yield much benefit.
"The problem is you can have the best policy in the world but if you don't have the tools to implement it it isn't worth a bean bag,"
Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), the House Appropriations Committee chairman, told CNN on Sunday.
President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Tuesday he will add 30,000 troops to the war effort in Afghanistan to stem the rise of Taliban and to pursue al-Qaeda.
But Obey said supporting a corrupt Afghan government by adding troops amounted to a "fool's errand."
If policymakers believe continuing the war effort in Afghanistan was an important public policy, Obey added, then they should be willing to pay for it by raising taxes on higher income levels. The war would likely cost as much over the next decade as the effort to reforming the healthcare system, Obey said.
"If we're being told we have to pay for healthcare we certainly pay for this effort as well," Obey said. Otherwise, Congress would eventually have to raid other parts of the budget targeted at education or the economy to fund the war effort. Using deficit spending to pay for the operations has also removed most Americans from any burden in the war effort.
"In this war, we have not had any sense of shared sacrifice," Obey said.
Obey's bill would increase taxes by 1 percent on incomes over $150,000. Tax rates would increase further at higher income levels.
The financial cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan was a central theme on Sunday talk shows.
Earlier on CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said a surtax should be part of the debate about how to pay for the war.
"We're going to have to have a serious talk about budget and about the $1 trillion deficit we are in now and will continue to be in," Lugar said.
But his colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), told ABC's "This Week" that Congress should cut spending to pay for the additional troops.
*********************************************
Mr. Obey, do you and Charlie honestly believe that you are so slick that your ideas appear to everyone as genuine.
How about a 1920s - ban on war as illegal. You and Charlie should promote that idea. It is as genuine, more genuine than your share the pain bill.
Is the war in Iraq or Somalia or Sudan or Yemen or Afghanistan more a war for the rich in this country, or is the war on terror, a war we must all win?
If it is a war we must all win, shouldn't we ALL have to sacrifice? I know your friend Charlie believes the poor already pay a disproportionate percentage in sending sons and daughters off to war, but Charlie has quite a few issues with his accounting procedures, it is no wonder he has the trouble he does have with ethics investigations and criminal exposure.
In case you care about facts Mr. Obey, the military have a website, I am sure you could even get better stats than I can find given your proximity to a president who nearly hates the military as much as you do, but in case you can't be bothered - someone did take the time to provide the facts: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
What you will learn Mr. Obey and Mr. Rangel is - the vast majority of recruits come from middle class and upper middle class neighborhoods. But you weren't interested in facts were you Mr. Obey. Your interest is in simply ending the war - you oppose the military, you opposed the wars, you just want it stopped and you see this as a good method of inflicting enough pain that it will stop.
While Rangel argues we need a draft to save the poor from fighting in Iraq, you have taken a different approach - tax the rich, as if they are the supporters of the war and if you can tax them enough, they will cut off funding and support for the war.
I have to say you are persistent, as is Charlie, but you are not very bright. Oh, perhaps brighter than the average Retardican who has a difficult time tying their shoe and chewing gum, and or talking at the same time, but .... you are no brain.
Neither Rangel's claim the poor are unfairly fighting the war nor your transparent attempt at ending the war are rational, logical, truthful, or factual. You are a petty politician and nothing more.
war
Posts
