Congressional rep call for increased taxes to pay for any troop surge in Afghanistan

Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc) wants any additional troops to Afghanistan paid for by a "war surtax." (See article below after comments.)

There at least two implications of this viewpoint. One is that the threat of a surtax may help to discourage the Obama administration from implementing an escalation of troops. The second calls our attention to how spending on an escalation, $30-$40 billion or more, means less for important domestic programs such as a program to create jobs. I suppose that there is not much hope for a congressional passage of a surtax (or other tax related measures connected to the war), but Obey's warning may get some public attention and help to raise the issue of the sheer economic costs of this war and related lost opportunities at home. Probably not much.

The problem is that the US Congress has been largely a rubber stamp for war-connected expenditures, regardless of the "war." The long-standing reality of Military-Keynisianism and a militarized foreign-policy goes back to the late 1940s and continues to the present. C. Wright Mills book The Power Elite (published in 1956) was my first introduction to the great influence of domestic warlords and weapon makers over the government, and overall congressional subservience to them.

It will take a lot more than warnings from a few congresspersons to significantly change this. However, it is good for congressional representatives to raise questions about any aspect of the deeply-rooted status quo, this huge and powerful (parasitic and wasteful) military-industrial sector of our capitalist (waste-generating, ecologically-devastating, corporate-dominated) economy. It takes personal courage to buck the tsunami.

Bob Sheak

------------------------------------------------

Published on Monday, November 23, 2009 by The Hill
Reprinted by Common Dreams. Org (see URL after article)

Obey Wants 'War Surtax' to Fund Afghan Effort
by Michael O'Brien

WASHINGTON, DC - Any troop increase for Afghanistan should come with a "war surtax" on high income Americans, a top House chairman said Monday.

Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, warned that if President Barack Obama decides to send additional troops to Afghanistan, it should be funded with the new tax.

"If we have to pay for the healthcare bill, we should pay for the war as well," Obey told ABC News [1] in an interview, "by having a war surtax."

Obey said his proposed tax would be a "graduated" tax on income that would help offset the roughly $40 billion in new costs needed to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, a cost estimated by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orszag. "I want the president and every American to think ahead of time about what it means if you do add to our involvement in Afghanistan," Obey told ABC [1], pointing to the war costs that affected the presidencies and domestic agendas of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson.

The call for a new tax mirrors a similar demand over the weekend from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on funding the war effort in Afghanistan. Levin told Bloomberg News [2] that he favored an "additional income tax" on incomes over $200,000 or $250,000 to finance any troop surge. "If we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy," he said. "I'm going to be fighting to get whatever they do paid for."

© 2009 The Hill

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/23-3