Pelosi keeps door open on war tax

[sabra]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) - Speaker Nancy Pelosi kept the door open Tuesday to a proposal by several senior House Democrats to impose a graduated surtax on American taxpayers to finance the war in Afghanistan.

While Pelosi wasn't pressed about the details of the new war tax, she pointed to strong reservations among Congressional Democrats about the costs of the war during a conference call Tuesday with several economic writers and bloggers.

"But let me say that there is serious unrest in our Caucus about can we afford this war?" Pelosi said.

Two years ago when House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, floated a similar war tax to pay for the war in Iraq, Pelosi quickly rejected it. But on Tuesday Pelosi said the costs of the war and the impact they will have on other domestic priorities should be part of the discussion over U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/25/pelosi-keeps-door-open-on-war-tax-2/

[mvd]

1. Finally! The war (which I oppose), if funded, should..

have to be like any other program.

[Mz Pip]

2. I am all for this

I would love to hear what the war crazy folks who think Dick Cheney is right about everything say object to this.

Iraq was a discretionary war paid for with money that could have been well spent here at home. It has cost thousands of families the loss of a loved one.

Afghanistan is past the point of being beneficial. Maybe if Bush had kept his eye on the ball in 2002 and not gone off half cocked about Iraq we would have gotten somewhere. But all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to salvage anything over there after all this time. It's just too late.

Maybe talking about a sur tax will put some perspective on this. Wars cost money. Lots of money.

[ORDagnabbit]

3. If they tax me (and the other poor people) instead of only the rich... I'm probably gonna end up in

the IRS dungeons... I wont pay.. no way no how...

[BREMPRO]

4. did you hear what Beck said yesterday about the war tax proposal?

he called it a conspiracy to use war for wealth redistribution! That is SO wrong is SO many ways. Guy's a fukin pathological loon.

[ForeignSpectator]

9. I am sure that's not what beck meant but it could be used for

wealth redistribution bottom-up, as a side effect...

[liberal N proud]

5. Can we opt out of the war tax if we oppose the war?

They GOP is for opting out of the public option in health care, what would they think about opting out if we oppose the war?


Tax the shit out of those who want to wage war! Maybe they will think twice.

[Frosty cupcake]

6. I want a Hyde-type Amendment for war.

Just as not federal funds can be used to provide abortion services to women because fundies object, I too, should be allowed to keep my tax dollars away from war which I object to.

[hughee99]

7. So the same group of people that keep the war going, are going to tax us

extra for continuing it?

[David__77]

8. And it will be duty of progressives to oppose funding the war of aggression.

Of course, we can count on one's hands the number of legislators who will do the right thing.

[Blue_Tires]

10. the reaction from the freedumb-loving chickenhawk teabag crowd will be entertaining

i can hear the disconnect in their brains through the innernettes

[Faryn Balyncd]

11. 1% Surcharge, 5% surcharge for the wealthy....For chickenhawks, how about a firstborn child?

Only 2 things will put an end to this nonsense:


(1) Making the children of chickenhawks subject to draft into the infantry, and


(2) Making them pay for the war rather than charging it to plastic.

[Nihil]

12. Good to see how she cares about the president's image ...

> Two years ago when House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin,
> floated a similar war tax to pay for the war in Iraq, Pelosi quickly rejected it.

Oops.
Wrong president being protected from the negative PR of raising unwanted taxes.


> "Share the Sacrifice Act."

How about "Pretentious Crock of Shit to Continue Our War-Profiteering Act"?

:shrug:

[Igel]

13. The thing about spin is that it can be right or left.

Not politically, necessarily. Just that objects can spin in multiple directions--and so can facts.

So two years ago by saying "no new taxes" Pelosi could engage in a kind of starve-the-beast stratagem. Remember--two years ago, which is to say f/y 2008, deficits were bad. Okay, the recession kicked in two years ago, but still--deficits were the devil's work, and even though Congress passed the budget, * was the devil. Moreover, the war was bad--well, not necessarily the Afghan war, but two years ago the Iraq war was front and center, and it was bad. War's war. Not funding it was the correct line to achieve the desired policy *and* make the devil look as bad as possible.

Now, however, things are more complex. Deficits good, but deficits bad. Obama good, but war bad. What to do? How about a similar two-fer, but softened a bit? First, propose a tax. That still goes to "starve the beast", because it makes the question of war-funding a problem. Does Obama raise taxes? (Sure, Congress would originate and pass the tax increase, but that's a bit of trivia.) If he doesn't, there's pressure to end it. At the same time, it says, "We're engaging in massive deficit spending for a lot of things--but let's focus on the war. Then we're deficit hawks, as well!" And since a lot of people, esp. independents, are concerned about the deficit, there you have it. It does put Obama is a little of a jam--he has to either side with higher deficits or raise taxes, or he can use this as a reason to limit troop deployments in a kind of cost-benefit analysis where he gets to stipulate the costs and the benefits. On the other hand, it the dems in Congress are in much less of a bind, and they're the ones facing an election in 2010. Anything Obama does this yearly will have little effect on 2012.

[2Design]

14. I will not fund a war - get those rwingers to fund this monstrosity n/t