A War Tax: A Strategic, Fiscal and Political Imperative

President Obama is about to make a momentous decision: whether and to what extent to commit the United States to continuous war in Afghanistan. It is the most difficult decision I think this, or any other president, has probably confronted.

History provides conflicting advice. Foreign occupiers of Afghanistan always fail and, at the same time, our abandoning Afghanistan after the Afghans defeated the Soviet Union arguably left a political vacuum that the al-Qaeda coddling Taliban filled. Unlike his predecessor, this President has been able to get the significant Pakistani cooperation in going after terrorists in the FATA region, and it is unclear (to me) what impact leaving Afghanistan would have on that relationship, and the stability of the nuclear-armed Pakistani government.

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry correctly pointed out that none of the options in Afghanistan are good -- that, thanks to the Bush/Cheney legacy, all we are left with is to find the least bad alternative.

Nonetheless, it has become far too 'easy' for presidents to commit us to war. Other peoples' children fight, die and are wounded. Only a tiny fraction of the country is mobilized and actually sacrifices. It is conducted on borrowed money. Indeed, candidate Kerry's oft-quoted "I voted for it before voting against it" was a vote on paying for the Iraq War (he was for it) that was defeated, and so he voted against it.

If the president wants to continue and/or raise the commitment, and there is even the remotest chance of achieving anything meaningful, we are going to have to be there for the long haul. The "long haul," however, on borrowed money is a non sequitur. Hence, for strategic reasons, a war tax paying-as-we-go for whatever operations the president determines is a strategic imperative unless the decision is to cease-and-desist. The idea of continuing or raising the commitment for a long haul when the long haul is unaffordable and thus impossible is a cruel waste of life and limbs and time and money and prestige.

A war tax is also a fiscal imperative. For all those concerned -- as I am -- about our debt on the one hand, and the need, on the other hand, for fiscal stimulus to prevent a slide back to depression and reform health care and create a new energy economy and make our education world-class and and rebuilding our infrastructure and provide baby boomers their retirement and medicare (and, even those elements that some might argue could be funded by tax cuts, it is still a fiscal loss and, if permanent, an even greater budget burden than temporary seeding through direct government expenditures), paying for the wars via a war tax enables the President to fund what he is doing at the proper levels and not further indebt us to other countries.

It is worth reminding ourselves that a high level of foreign indebtedness is a reduction in sovereignty -- the other party(ies) can brandish our debt as a weapon very much like banks are foreclosing on peoples' homes. Although the rightwing will never support a tax for anything, their calls for American strength ring hollow as they allow the US to become more dependent on the good will of countries and people they despise by not paying for the wars they trumpet so long as other peoples' children fight them. (Question to Joe Lieberman: which one of your kids is volunteering for Afghanistan?)

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is a political imperative. Without a draft, and without a war tax, 99.9% of Americans do not have to sacrifice at all to continue the war. It is too easy for war to become, for 99.9% of us, more like a video game played out on television (that rarely shows more than a snippet of pain, suffering and life long injury).

The Bush Administration was keenly aware that having to pay for the Iraq War would cost it support. That is why they lied about its projected costs. That is why they bristled when General Shinseki told the truth about the number of troops required for a post-war occupation (we could all do the math).

And, that is why Republicans voted against paying for the Iraq War. John Kerry's description of the vote was certainly a verbal gaffe, but it contained a strong dose of substance.

Continuing the Afghanistan war is already unpopular when the question is put, but it has not stimulated major televised hearings or debates, and it is likely that President Obama can order 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 thousand more troops to Afghanistan without a controversy searing into the consciousness of the American people because it does not touch most of us directly. It will be a story for about a week or two.

An Afghan war vote in the Congress accompanied by a war tax to pay for it would force Republicans to make a choice between their mindless opposition to any taxes and their (equally) mindless all out support of any war. The President would be politically foolish to allow them to have it both ways -- i.e, disagreeing with whatever the President does militarily, but not having to show how much they really support military action by their willingness to pay for it.

For strategic, fiscal and political reasons, therefore, there ought to be a "war tax" enacted specifically to fund continuing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and sunseted when those military actions have finished.

Warring on borrowed money must cease. If people, especially those who can afford it, are not even willing to sacrifice a portion of their wallets for this cause, how can we ask others to sacrifice their lives and limbs?

 

Comments

[SilviaMaria]

"An Afghan war vote in the Congress accompanied by a war tax to pay for it would force Republicans to make a choice between their mindless opposition to any taxes and their (equally) mindless all out support of any war. The President would be politically foolish to allow them to have it both ways -- i.e, disagreeing with whatever the President does militarily, but not having to show how much they really support military action by their willingness to pay for it."

I completely agree with this. A war tax to pay for all those wars will make people think twice (maybe not) but I will send this idea to my representatives.

[iridium53]

45,000 Americans die each year for lack of healthcare.
Obama and the Democrats decided that healthcare must be budget neutral.

Why not also require that foreign wars that have no direct causal relationship to American safety also be budget neutral?

Why are efforts to build foreign countries more important to American politicians than the lives of 45,000 American citizens at home?

A progressive tax on the additional costs of pursuing wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan seems like a prudent measure that would enlighten the American people to the long-term deficit issues relating to such wars.

Perhaps those chickenhawks that propose we raise our commitment to these countries would be less inclined to do so if the actual cost is specifically tacked on to every individual's tax bill.

[kkrimmer]

This was doomed from the start. Why?
Bush.

Bush's oil-consultant presidential appointee Karzai made a mess of it. Rather than taking the opportunity that the US gave Afghanistan and start with a clean election he and his henchmen decided that they're smarter than the average Afghani and they could "rig" the election. Wrong.

Now a re-election will take place and it's going to be much tougher to get people to vote in many areas because of threats of violence. Turnout is expected to be much much lower, and people have lost faith in the election process... all thanks to Bush's buddy Karzai.

But since Bush decided NOT to go after America's real enemy al-Qaida and instead sent 130,000 troops to liberate Iraqi oil... we're in this mess. But we must help Afghanistan transition like Iraq, then have a time table for leaving. We also must support the Pakistani government with money and weapons to fight the Taliban/al-Qaida there.

If Gore had been elected this would have played out much differently.
------
Greenspan: Oil the Prime Motive for Iraq War
America's elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296938,00.ht ml
-----

[saltysea]

Great idea. Let's put our money where our mouths are. As you say, people are dying, and we don't have to face that reality in our daily lives.

[WmC]

Agreed. I also think Obama should make a deal with Repugs: He'll add troops as long as they're the ones to propose the tax. Then we'll see who "dithers."

[CommunistUtopia]

This seems like a question of economic fairness. But, I don't think this will work. I want to opt out of Social (In)Security and Medicare but I cannot. Why should be have a war tax?

[ResoluteBob]

I think this is a fine idea. Moving these matters from the abstract to the concrete is necessary; the abstract nature of using borrowed money to wage war has meant that most people don't understand the ramifications of that decision. I'd like to take a small tangent here, and suggest that people need to be exposed (through television and the Web) to graphical illustrations of the money being spent on the Military Industrial Complex, as compared to other segments of Government spending. A similarly interesting set of charts and graphs could be made to illustrate the abstract family of financial instruments called Derivatives, so that people have a better understanding of how the Financial Services Industry has taken our debt, repackaged and resold it as new, and profited on every illicit transaction.
Ross Perot attempted this (with regard to the destruction of the Industrial Base)--unf­ortunately people had little willingness to listen at that point. Now that we are 'under the gun', literally and figuratively, perhaps that will change.

[Ergon]

A war tax? THAT was the rationale in 1917.

[ccpostman]

Start the draft. Would be a win-win-win.

The rich would end the wars ASAP to save their brats from service.

The military service in this country is proof that class warfare is still going STRONG.

[brotherdoc]

"The President would be politically foolish to allow them to have it both ways"--oh yeah? This is not just partisan politics, it's the question of who really runs our country. The real problem is that the Military Industrial Complex is totally bi-partisan and by design affects jobs in every single Congressional District. Here's what I think: put on the Form 1040 a check-off box, like they have for contributing to campaigns, that says, "Do you favor the War in Afghanistan?" If you check yes, you have to go back and recompute a, say, 20% surtax on what you owe. Would this not force people of both parties to face the true costs? Even more dramatic, if you answer yes to the first question there's another one: "Do you have an able child/grandchild of the age to serve in the military? Send him/her in...."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/a-war-tax-a-strategic-fis_b_348489.html&cp

[Carl Caroli]

A war tax and a draft should be required for any military involvement, period. Every citizen needs to feel the costs of war in order to make a decision that will send thousands of troops to their death.

[rubberstamp]

Here here
I am 100% for a war tax

Americans need to have a more concrete relation to our governments activity.

and by that measure the draft as well.

a 2 year minimum of national service.
Everyone need to experience civic duty in some capacity whether its picking up garbage on highways or joining the military.

I think Americans would think twice about everything if consequences and real effort where involved.
Armchair generals might have a different perspective if they actually have to pay for their bravado.

[Paul Abrams - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you all for comments. I am writing to clarify the position the article takes. This is not a pro-Afghan war position. It is trying to say that it should not be fought on borrowed money, and that linking a tax directly to war funding would flush out just how much (or little) support for the war there really is. My guess is that whatever support there is for the war would decline by 50%. And, if people do not think it so important that they are willing to pay for it, how can they send others to die for it?

The other point is that putting a tax to pay for the war as part of any funding Congress is asked to provide for the war, would flush out those who would otherwise question the mettle and patriotism of those who oppose it, but would oppose it because of the taxes. How can one say on the one hand that our survival is at stake, and at the same time vote against authorizing it if it is paid for? Well, they can and will say it, but their protestations will ring hollow.

[swift goat pet for truth]

I understand.

I LOVE this idea.
We did it in WWII.

War Tax. Go for it.

[swift goat pet for truth]

No sunset clause.

A Congressional Law forever.

[Cleverboots]

Before any war tax is imposed on the already overtaxed American public, let's give this some serious thought. Most Americans have never supported the Iraq War. Americans,­especially the Viet Nam War generation, do not support another unwinnable war in Afghanistan. We have had ENOUGH of pointless wars and want both wars ended. We have a responsibility to provide first for our citzizens in need at home before we spend ANY money for nation building abroad or helping corrupt countries that are unable or unwilling to help themselves. Let the American people decide whether or not to continue these wars and to be taxed to pay for the wars.Neither Congress nor the President should make the choice for the rest of the country. Put the issue to a binding public vote.

[djs111]

You all are posting as if the people who will be taxed have any say at all in whether there will be a war.
Why should I feel "involved" with a war that I do not agree with, and, to go by recent history, may even be bogus and trumped up?
You think my pocket being pinched, picked, whatever, even more than now, will render me "involved"? Make me want to watch it on TV? Will make me enthusiastic and supportive? Nope.
Besides, since single payer was yanked off the table, this gift to the insurance industry called "mandate" is going to be taking a lot of money out of American pockets; after housing and food and deductibles, there likely won't be enough pickings left for a war.

[ECBA88]

It will make you invested in our level of military action overseas. And connecting the war to a tax that actually pays for it, and then putting that up for a vote in Congress will give you and the rest of us to show our legislators how we feel about the continued price of the Afghanistan conflict.

It would play hell with the entire Democratic Party on the Hill, but it would make them take some real positions and let the American people decide how they feel about them.

And it would be ten times MORE fun with Republicans! Can you imagine what they would do when they have to choose between their love of violent foreign policy, their hatred of taxes, and their hatred of deficits? I think their heads would explode.

[djs111]

I understand what you are saying. BUT I think that, in every issue that comes up in Congress, corporate money has trumped what the public thinks, 100% of the time.
I stand with Lily Tomlin in thinking I can never be cynical enough.
I don't even think politicians are worried about elections, corporate money is promised to buoy them up and also to work against opponents.
And campaign rhetoric - there should be a crawl at the bottom of the screen, or a note at the bottom of printed material saying "The promises made in this speech are just designed to get you to vote for me and I can not be held responsible for fulfilling them should I get elected."
The whole system is corrupted now. IMO, JMO, FWIW, et. al.
Just saying a war tax would be rescinded after the war was over made me giggle a little.

[SilviaMaria]

That's the whole point. I never supported this war but by paying a war tax will make people think about the consequences of that. I do not want to pay a war tax either, but it would be like a wake up call.

[wombsnake]

What people seem to either not realize or have forgotten is that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the first and only wars that the united states has been a part of in which the government has/did not raise taxes. these wars are financed on foreign dollars and since people don't feel their pockets being pinched it is easier to forget about. sad.