Lieberman’s ‘war on terrorism tax’

February 12, 2007

Joe Lieberman, for all of his offensive Republican tendencies, still seems to have a little fiscally-responsible Democratic voice in his head, wondering how the country can afford to pay for Bush’s foreign policy. My friend Cliff Schecter noted today that Lieberman even went so far as to propose a solution that his new GOP buddies probably won’t care for.

This may come off as blasphemy, but I support the latest idea of Joe Lieberman. I want him to propose a “war tax” on the floor of the Senate.

I wrote a few days ago that Democrats need to make Republicans take tough votes, and none would be tougher than a vote on a war tax. Republicans would either have to vote to increase taxes (you might not have heard this, but Republicans generally don’t like to raise taxes) or they would have to vote against funding for the troops. They would have to choose between their so-called ethos or their b.s., Hannityesque flag waving rhetoric.

That doesn’t sound bad at all, and I’m delighted to see Lieberman take some responsibility for finding the money to finance the reckless foreign policy decisions he endorses. Indeed, he told his Senate Armed Services Committee colleagues last week that “we underfunding some needs we have. I think the Army needs more, the National Guard needs more. I think we’re heading rapidly to a 274-ship Navy, and we’re flat-funding research and development.” At the same time, he said, the new White House budget made it clear that “we’re really squeezing some critical domestic programs.”

A “war tax,” in this context, makes sense. And Cliff’s right, it would put the GOP on the spot a bit, narrowing their choices to a) paying for their foreign policy and national security priorities; b) changing their foreign policy and national security priorities; or c) keeping passing the bill to future generations.

That said, there’s one thing that’s causing me to hesitate: wouldn’t a new revenue stream effectively encourage the Bush-Cheney-McCain-Lieberman foreign policy decisions that have been so disastrous?

Angry Bear’s item from late last week sounded persuasive.

The political activist in me says no way do I want to pay for this war. I was against it and the President lied to get us into it, all the while being cheered on by many who even today can’t admit they were wrong. Let them pay for it if they like it so much. Add to this the injustice of proposing a broad based tax to pay for the war just after massive tax cuts benefiting the richest among us. What that means at the end of the day is a massive shift in paying for the war — First make sure the rich get out from under and then stick it to everyone with a regressive tax.

Yes, it’s obviously a serious problem that Bush, Cheney, and their congressional enablers don’t have the money to pay for their military ambitions. But my inclination is not to give them more money, but to get them to change their ambitions.

I applaud Lieberman’s instinct. He wants his wars and he wants to pay for them, which is more than we can say for his Republican allies. Now if we could only have a more sensible foreign policy, Lieberman’s war tax wouldn’t even be necessary.

I would say that the war in Iraq is making the war on terrorism worse, so defunding it would be a good first step.

Lieberman is a total dickhead and should not be called anything but that. He knows damn well that the war in Iraq would never have been waged if his tax idea was raised as a requisite to starting the war, even with the BS numbers the neoconmen used in 2003.

  • This idea sucks as much as Lieberman does. First off, Bush and Cheney don’t give a crap about paying for their wars so a “War on Terror” tax, will simply enable them to extend tax cuts for richest Americans, while at the same time claiming to lower the deficet. The second reason why this idea sucks is that in no way does this paint anyone in a corner about “supporting the troops.” Bush, etc will just say that it is important that we have a strong economy and raising taxes will br devastating. The third reason why it sucks is b/c no one in the country agrees with this stupid idea. Anyone who supports continuing the war is likely a GOP stalwart and hates taxes as much as al qaeda. Anyone who wants to end the war, sure as hell doesn’t want to fund it. 70% of the country want us to get the hell out of Iraq. Leave Lieberman in freaking la-la land where he belongs.

  • Couldn’t Dems tie this to the up-or-down vote on defunding the war using pay-go or at least its intent. Something to the effect of “We take fiscal responsibility seriously. We will either pay for this war with a tax or we will defund it. It has been run on hidden numbers for far too long at far too great an expense.

  • Maybe if I thought it through dispassionately enough, I might find some merit in Lieberman’s idea, but I’m busy fighting the gag reflex thinking of anything Lieberman might say.

  • LIEberman cares more about Israel than the US. What other explanation is there? Why would he be so hell bent on us staying there? His only worry is that if we leave, the power vacuum will be filled by the Iranians who want Israel off the map. Hey Joe, I hate to burst your bubble, but Bu$h’s foolish war has already given the upper hand to the Iranians. Go to Israel, represent them, we Americans are fed up with your hatred of America.

  • A war tax is as politically DOA as anything could be – Republicans won’t vote for it because it’s electoral suicide. Dems won’t vote for it because they don’t want to fund the Cheney administration’s imperial foreign policy, and because it’s electoral suicide.

    The only reason to propose it is to demonstrate the GOP’s irresponsibility one more time – all the Republican votes against it would show they don’t believe in funding the war if it means real money. The thing is that we already have tons of demonstrations that the GOP is fiscally irresponsible. I doubt we need another.

  • A war tax would be a fine idea, but if we can’t win this war with 60% of the worlds defense spending it isn’t because we aren’t spending enough it’s because our strategy is wrong.

  • Mr. Carpetbagger,

    But my inclination is not to give them more money, but to get them to change their ambitions.

    Isn’t that one of the aspects of a War tax? Not only does it potentially put the GOP members of Congress in a no-win situation, but if the country club supporters of the GOP knew that they’d have to pay more in taxes, then they would force Cheney, Rove, et al to change their ambitions. So, rescind all the W tax cuts under the guise of “its the War stupid” and the high income/wealth types supporting the GOP will no longer support them.

    works for me.

  • I’m for any move that lets the American public feel the cost of this war, rather than being insulated, apathetic voyeurs who aren’t touched by the conflict. I’d also like to see a debate of a war tax drift into the realm of the need for additional citizens in uniform. A picture of George Bush pointing to the public, like the old Uncle Sam posters of WWI and II, and saying “I want you and your children to fight in my war,” might galvanize in the public’s mind that Bush expects us to die over for his great and glorious invented conflict.

  • Tax Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton and Richard Mellon Scaife for the war. If those are the sources of funds, I dare say the enthusiasm for war will be diminished.

  • I read a very persuasive article a while back that argued that cutting taxes actually expands the size of government because it effectively makes government cheaper and thus more attractive. That is, people get the same services, but they don’t have to pay as much taxes. Therefore, government solutions become more popular. The best way to shrink the size of government is to raise taxes. If you actually make people pay for the services they are getting, government solutions become less popular.

    I imagine the same argument could be made for wars. If taxes had been raised to pay for this war when it was started, I guarantee that it would have been less popular from the beginning. At the moment, we have the illusion of a free war. The cost is just going on the tab for future generations to pay.

  • Nothing makes a war more unpopular than paying for it. I’m for it if it starts with the wealthy in the form of recinded tax cuts. Let’s call it a luxury tax because their luxurious windfall has been paid with the blood and grief of the poor of both the USA and Iraq.

  • I’m all in favor of eliminating Bush’s tax cuts as soon as possible, but the reality is that that it isn’t going to happen. Bush will veto any attempt to roll them back, and the Dems don’t have the votes to override his veto. You could try it as a symbolic gesture, but you shouldn’t expect it to go anywhere.

    A dedicated Iraq War tax, on the other hand, at least has a chance to pass. More importantly, it puts the Republicans on the hot seat by pitting their two most important issues against each other — tax cuts or war? If they vote against an Iraq War tax, they’re voting against the war. But if they vote for the war they have to vote for new taxes.

    Why should anyone support an Iraq War tax? I agree completely with Angry Bear’s argument, but as they say, to spend is to tax. We’re running a massive deficit right now, and either the bills are going to be paid now or we’re going to dump them off on our kids. I’m not willing to do that.

    Of course as always the devil is in the details. If Schmoe Lieberman uses this as an excuse to try and enact a regressive tax scheme, Dems should oppose it. But if Democrats proposed something like a flat rate across-the-board tax with no exemptions, I think that would have a chance of getting passed into law. One criticism is that it would just give the administration more money to spend on the war. So a tax like that should be followed by a full-court press on PAYGO to limit the overall size of the budget and all-out opposition to further cuts in social programs.

    If the Dems can do that they can begin to put a dent into our runaway deficit, while forcing Republicans to put their money where their mouth is on the war.

    • Comments are closed.