Displaying all 1 Forum Posts

Why can't we tax to pay for wars?

12-10-2009, 11:23 AM

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 73

Reference: The American Prospect, Paul Waldman, The Spending Wars, Dec 9, 2009

Paul Waldman discusses how in the past "the ebb and flow of federal taxation was largely dictated by war."

"As this handy "History of the U.S. Tax System" from the U.S. Treasury explains, we raised taxes to pay for wars over and over again."

However, "since the 1960s, Republicans have driven our rhetoric about government spending and taxes. They successfully defined taxation as the taking of money from honest, hardworking Americans and giving it to undeserving, shiftless leeches."

"Republicans have also managed to ensure that military spending isn't really considered spending at all, something that becomes evident whenever they start talking budgets."

"That we will debate the cost of domestic initiatives is a given. But saying we have to sacrifice them in order to pay for the military would imply that the military is something that we actually have to pay for. And that isn't part of the conversation."

So why shouldn't Congress pass a war surtax to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Give me one good reason? The alternatives are to drive deficits higher as per the Bush years, or cut domestic spending. Which is it? What domestic programs should be cut to pay for more bombs and bullets?