Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

The idea of a war tax has been floated to an underwhelming reception, but I just came across a different version that has some good ideas in it.

It comes from a comment (from John Anderson's congressional chief of staff in 1980) to Matt Yglesias' post about last night's Afghanistan speech. Here's the whole post:

Regarding this post and your story on Ray LaHood thinking about an increase in the gas tax, I have long thought that the entire Defense budget and our adventurous wars should be funded solely from the gas tax. Back in 1980, I was John B. Anderson�s congressional chief of staff when JBA ran for President. One of his planks was to increase the federal gas tax by 50 cents in order to buttress Social Security. George Will excoriated Anderson for the proposal, but if my memory serves me well, Will published a column, after Reagan was elected, calling for a similar increase, but proposing instead to use the revenue to add to the Defense budget.

My reasoning is this. First, so much of our defense and foreign aid funding supports our addiction to oil. Secondly, many opponents of the war and our ever-increasing defense expenditures would prefer to direct their tax dollars elsewhere (there once had been a proposal in Congress for a World Peace Tax Fund, to which taxpayers could direct their taxes). Third, for those folks who want to do more to support the troops than put yellow ribbons on their SUVs, they would have the opportunity to put their money where their sentiments are: by paying vastly higher gas taxes to support our war policies. Fourth, pacifists and anti-war opponents could drive hyper-efficient cars, ride mass transit, where available, walk, bike or car pool, thereby denying the war machine more of their tax dollars.

Over time, those who bang the drums for war would have some actual skin in the game through their increased contributions through gas taxes. If the tax encouraged others to shift their transportation uses, then we might need less Mideast oil and would have less justification for projecting power there and, perhaps, diminishing the need for a higher gas tax.

Anyway, it�s just a thought.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/the-war.php

A tax similar to this idea would 1) spread the sacrifice of war around so the whole public would share would contribute to making the decision to go to war more difficult: 2) help defray the cost of war by reducing the need to borrow, if even by a little bit, 3) perhaps make politicians a bit more hesitant to go to war and 4) contribute to energy conservation.

[youtuber]

A neat idea.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Here's an idea. Why not scale back the adventures in foreign countries?

[Koveras]

In Canada, income tax began as a war tax.

[sunnata1]

Citizens can't directly vote on whether to go to war or not, why should they be required to directly pay for one?

A better solution - when the U.S. is at war all congressional representatives get 50% of their salary.

[Moldy Rutabaga]

[bucheon bum]

[kangnamdragun]

It is my belief that the primary responsibility of the national government is national security. Therefore, a war tax should not be an additional tax. The war should be paid for first with our income taxes and Americans should stop wasting money on other things the federal government has no legal responsibility for.

[ontheway]

[ontheway]

It would be better to repeal all taxes and finance wars with voluntary donations and bake sales.

[bacasper]

Here's the report of the proposal:

Democrats Propose Surtax to Cover War Costs

CQPolitics.com

Fri Nov 20, 1:43 pm ET

Senior House Democrats have introduced legislation that would impose a surtax beginning in 2011 to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill was unveiled late Thursday by David R. Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and has the backing of John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and John B. Larson of Connecticut, chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

"For the last year, as we've struggled to pass health care reform, we've been told that we have to pay for the bill -- and the cost over the next decade will be about a trillion dollars," the three lawmakers said in a joint statement. "Now the president is being asked to consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which proponents tell us will take at least a decade and would also cost about a trillion dollars. But unlike the health care bill, that would not be paid for. We believe that's wrong."

Discussing the idea earlier this month, Murtha said he knew the bill would not be enacted and that advocates of a surtax were simply trying to send a message about the moral obligation to pay for the wars.
*********************************************
As expected, the Democratic had-been war enablers who have now become the war prosecutors have scuttled the proposal in the person of Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi Rejects War Surtax

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has all but killed the idea of a surtax to pay for President Obama�s plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, rejecting a proposal championed by Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey , D-Wis.

�I�m not a supporter of the proposal of Mr. Obey,� Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Thursday.

Obey�s idea had gained traction among some House liberals. But even before Pelosi dumped cold water on the plan, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs indicated that the Obama administration would oppose it.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I really do think some form of this idea would be good. A sunset provision would target it to the particular use it is intended for. It's an idea the fiscal conservatives and environmentalists could both get behind. And it would force politicians to work harder to convince people any given war was worth it before committing the country's blood and treasure.

I don't see a downside to it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

[Koveras]

You want to increase taxes - that's realistically what gas taxes do - and slate all the revenue for war. You think that this would result in less war. You also believe, contrary to common sense and historical fact, that the government would voluntarily give up the extra revenue in peacetime.

[Koveras]

Bump.