You break the peace, you buy the war
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), believes such a levy should be on the agenda of the debt-reduction “supercommittee.”
“These wars ought to be paid for and not put on a credit card so that our kids will have to pay for this in the future,” McGovern said in a recent telephone interview. It’s morally wrong for members [of Congress] to call for support of our soldiers and then not ask the rest of us to pay for it .?.?. or have it left to the poor and middle-income and seniors to bear the sacrifice along with our soldiers and their families. That’s wrong.”
More than $1 trillion already has been added to the deficit by expenditures generated by Iraq and Afghanistan, the first wars undertaken by U.S. presidents since the War of 1812 that have not been financed in part by a special tax.
It’s nice to hear McGovern put forth the argument. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t seem like anyone with any real power — Democrat or Republican — has much interest in adhering to this measure of fiscal conservatism:
When McGovern and Reps. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) and John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) suggested a 2 percent surcharge for middle-income taxpayers and up to 15 percent for the wealthiest four years ago, even the House Democratic leadership did not support them. Some Republicans accused them of using the taxes to generate opposition to the wars.
In 2009, when President Obama proposed his surge of 30,000 troops for Afghanistan and Obey again proposed a surtax, “it got no traction,” McGovern said. McGovern said he recently brought it up in a Democratic Caucus session with the president but “did not get a direct answer.” […]
Asked about a war tax, Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, responded that the questioner “can always send in more to the Treasury if you like, and I would encourage you to do that if you feel that way.” McGovern called that answer “flippant on a serious issue.”
It’s worthless answers like McKeon’s that make it mighty hard for me to take the Republican party’s newfound adoration of fiscal austerity particularly hard to take seriously. When it comes to taxes, the Democrats sure as hell aren’t going to raise ’em; they’ve been beaten into submission on the issue of taxes for far too long to seriously turn back now.
Of course, the political calculus on this one is hardly arcane — no party wants to be the bad guys who raised taxes. But when is the political culture in this country going to grow up and realize that if you’re going to go around using all those fancy toys of mass destruction you said you needed so badly, you’re going to have at least chip-in when it’s time to pay-up.
(x-posted to Flower & Thistle)
If this would do anything, it would result in a re-classification of any kinetic military action into the “NOT A WAR!!!!” one.
“We have decided to engage in an active right-sizing of terrorist activity in Nowheristan.”Report
Part of the reason why we get these awful euphemisms (“police action,” “kinetic military action,” etc.) is that in terms of the U.S. Constitution, the Executive needs explicit legislative approval fight a war.
It also carries international legal implications. Being the party that starts the war also carries obvious moral implications (this, I think, is the lasting legacy of the Nazis, who have earned a special place in historical opprobrium for this reason among others). This is why UN Security Counsel Resolution 1441 was so important – it made Iraq the instigator, despite the facts ascertained later.
But politically, its because the public, in all places and historical times, hates war — unless they hate the “enemy” sufficiently. This hate, of course, is easier if you don’t have to pay for it up front.
DUReport
Or we could end the wars and skip the tax.
But that’s just irresponsible libertarian crazy talk. I don’t expect anyone to agree.Report
But that’s just irresponsible libertarian crazy talk.
Or commie America-hater talk. At least, that’s what they called it back in 2003.Report
If you’re saying that you wouldn’t try to stop Hitler, then you’re saying that you prefer the slaughter of six million Jews to getting your hands dirty.Report
“Or we could end the wars and skip the tax.
But that’s just irresponsible libertarian crazy talk. I don’t expect anyone to agree.”
The DFHs got there first. But there are 10 ANSWER members for every 1000 who marched against the war, so the DFHs are unserious.Report
Somebody had a Free Mumia sign too!Report
Tea bag them before they tea bag you.Report
I think there’s an inherent danger in tying taxing or spending to events that you don’t have total control over.
If you believe that wars can be just, then it doesn’t make sense to put the country in a situation where committing troops to a just war would additionally hurt the economy or the poor (by forcing increased revenue to cover the war immediately, which must come out of taxes or government programs). It makes much more sense to make this decision on a case-by-case basis, and pay the war forward when the economy is already in good shape.
If you don’t think wars can ever be just, then this really is just a disguised way to generate opposition.Report
In fact, the more I think about this the more this kind of policy inherently depends on the idea that wars are always strategic conquest. Whereas a just war will almost always be an urgent situation: either defending ourselves or our allies. So this policy is like saying that every time you have to drive someone to the emergency room you should fill up your gas tank first. Of course, having a full tank before you drive is generally a good thing; but to put it as a prerequisite for an ER visit completely completely misses the point on what such a visit entails.
Back in the real world, while I am entirely against the current wars and operations, forcing a tax to cover them during a recession would either put an additional strain on the economy or cause the wars to be wound down in a rushed, incomplete way or a bit of both. In a poor economy, I see a lot of parallels between this and a balanced budget amendment.Report
To put that trillion dollars into perspective, total federal spending over the last ten years has been $30 trillion. Total GDP over the same time period was over $140 trillion, meaning that the war cost about 0.7% of GDP. A government can sustain a deficit of 2-3% of GDP indefinitely, because at this rate GDP tends to grow faster than the debt.
Say what you want about the philosophical merits of the war; fiscally speaking it’s the least of our problems.
That said, cutting domestic spending is another option for offsetting the war spending.Report
Yes, more or less setting a trillion dollars on fire is OK as long as it’s only a small part of GDP!Report
I didn’t say anything about the wisdom of spending a trillion dollars on the war. I just pointed out that there was no urgent need to raise taxes to pay for the war specifically, because a deficit of less than 1% of GDP just isn’t that big a deal.
The skew of McGovern’s proposed surtax makes it pretty obvious what’s going on here: Leftists want to raise taxes on successful people. They always have wanted to do this, and they always will want to do this, regardless of the details of the country’s fiscal situation. The war is merely the raison du jour for doing so.Report
Oh come on, revenue collection hasn’t been this low (as a % of GDP) since 1940 and you’re kvetching about taxing successful people?
Besides, most of the programs in the US government are only single digit %’s of GDP. It all adds up. Mandating that optional wars aren’t allowed to be hidden off the books and then dumped on the national credit card seems like a pretty good suggestion (though likely it’d just result in more quibbling about what counts as a war).Report
No, no, no. This is all about evil leftists trying to raise taxes on successful cluster-bombs. Sheesh.Report
Why would you use this criteria instead of the deficit and debt?
That is, besides the answer that you already had a specific solution you wanted to propose for ideological reasons.Report
My neighbor asked me about this yesterday. (He’s a nice guy. In Canada, they spell it neighbour though) I really hadn’t thought about war spending in a while, but he wanted to know, “Did your country really cut taxes at the same time they went to war? I’ve never heard of anybody doing that”.Report