To be added to the Murtha Watch ping list please notify myself or RedRover.
Posted on 10/02/2007 8:15:46 AM PDT by xzins
Democrats Propose Tax Surcharge for War By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats on Tuesday proposed an income tax surcharge to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war onto future generations.
The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would pay an additional 12 to 15 percent, Obey said.
The plan's sponsors acknowledged it's unlikely to pass, but Democrats have been seeking in recent weeks to compare the approximately $190 billion cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars in 2008 with the $23 billion increase that Democrats want in domestic programs. President Bush has threatened to veto most of those domestic spending bills.
"The war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we're shoving off on them and it is devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities, expand their job training possibilities, attack our long-term energy problems and build stronger communities," Obey said.
Obey also announced that Democrats will not pass a supplemental spending bill for the Iraq war until next year, when Democrats hope public pressure could force Bush to change the course of the war.
Democrats hope their chances of winning a battle with Bush on the war will be better next year as the election season heats up.
"The showdown is going to be in January or February," McGovern said.
The lawmakers said the tax surcharge was similar to policies put in place to pay for the Vietnam War and World War II.
"By putting together this bill we hope people will stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the president's bluff on fiscal responsibility," Obey said.
This economy is still growing and the budget deficit is getting SMALLER.
Why in the world would we need a tax increase?
So that politicians in Washington can have TOO MUCH money???
Murtha is a traitor AND an idiot.
Murtha ping
Punish the populace for daring to support the President.
These traitors failed in every trick under the sun to force us to surrender in this war and now they are trying another stupid idea. The bad thing is that they are traitors, the good thing is that they are utterly stupid and impotent.
Im all for a tax. Of THEIR wages!
Nah don’t pay for the war today. Give the bill to the troops when they come home. If they won it quicker, the bill would not be this high. Right?
No DemocRat ever saw a dollar he didn’t want to steal.
These people are obsessed with money.
And Murtha was this far from getting caught taking a bribe from the Saudis...he wanted to play it safe first.
And he has the gall to lecture us about money!!
Sounds fair to me.
Maybe Murtha and my congressman Obey ought to quite wasting our tax money on their precious “earmarks” and pork spending. They may find they have lots of money left over to fund the fight for freedom and the fight against terrorism.
How about cutting the graft and pork out of Washington? Now that would be a novel idea wouldn’t it? We don’t need more taxes to pay these guys for doing nothing. Cut their pay, give them the same benefits as the American people get. No full retirements until they have worked for 20 years......like the rest of us.
I don’t know about him but if money was truly needed for our military, after we cut out all the non-essentials, I would have no problem giving more.
“the budget deficit is getting smaller”
??? Our National Debt is predicted to reach 9 trillion dollars this year. This doesn’t include the money budgeted for the war. Yet, we still add substantially to our deficit each year. This is financially irresponsible, and embarassing. http://www.federalbudget.com/
I can’t stand Murtha, and wouldn’t agree with any thing he says. Taxes don’t need to be increased, but spending needs to decrease radically.
We are passing the costs of this war to future generations, and that isn’t fair. You paint a rosy picture, but under the surface is a lot of debt, financial waste and irresponsibility. Our republican president, and congress have really let us down.
If the MSM was doing its job they'd latch onto this Democrat statement and scream to the world:
DEMOCRATS WANT TO RAISE TAXES ON THE POOREST AMERICANS
How many times have we heard this? The last showdown was supposed to be last month. McGovern, Obey, and Murtha are just grandstanding for the moonbat base.
Since the Defense Budget is only 3.8% of the Gross National Product (GNP) today, (it was 38.9% during WW II), and Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security take up almost the entire budget, how about they propose a tax increase to pay for that?
This scheduling is an implicit acceptance by the Democrats that Petraeus killed them. It is a desperate hope on their part that February’s report will show a reversal of the drive towards victory in Iraq that is unfolding now.
The Dems are in desperate trouble. The odds have reversed and they have been outmaneuvered by Bush. Victory is unfolding and the public sees it. They are going to be in a position of funding their own defeat.
Make no mistake at all . . . if Iraq continues to evolve as favorably as the last 6 months the GOP will chant non stop at the convention:
THE PEOPLE REMEMBER WHO PUSHED SURRENDER! THE PEOPLE REMEMBER WHO PUSHED SURRENDER! THE PEOPLE REMEMBER WHO PUSHED SURRENDER!
Do not think Hillary doesn’t see it coming, too.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The devil’s in the details. Just what does Murtha consider “low and middle taxpayers?” The bottom 45-50% don’t pay taxes. So, 5% of nothing is ZERO. This leaves the 15% tax increase for “wealthier” taxpayers, which from what I’ve seen of previous dem tax increase proposals, usually applies to any family making over $50K.
You know, this is sorta how things worked before the income tax. Politicians would propose something, and would propose a tax to pay for it (a head tax or an indirect levy). So people could see exactly how much a project or war would cost them, and could evaluate accordingly.
So I like the idea that people could know that they are paying $XYZ dollars per year to support something. If people thought it was worth it, Congress would continue it, otherwise they would end it.
Following the same logic, I wish there was a specific earmark tax, because then earmarks would die very quickly since people would see a line item showing the exact amount of money that is paying for a bridge to nowhere.
Democrats on Tuesday proposed an income tax surcharge to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war onto future generations.
This is another end-around FReepers. Democrats know Americans hate taxes so by pushing for higher taxes they’re forcing folks to decide if they value their pocketbook or the war.
If the GOP were smart, they’d introduce a bill to pay for the war by cutting out Murtha’s pork.
This is really nothing new for Murtha, it only surprises me it took so long for it to come out in the form of a proposed bill. He started spouting this bilge almost two years ago when he realized the war spending would cut into his pork.
To be added to the Murtha Watch ping list please notify myself or RedRover.
Perhaps we could also cut their health benefits and they can buy their own.
Remember, the Pubs are the Stupid Party but the Dems are the Evil Party. This tax is a two edged sword. They know people overall are sick of the war and they hate high taxes. So Obey has the best of all worlds for the Left. They can tax and make people mad at both the war and taxes. In ‘08, if the Dems win they will do both. Raise taxes and go for defeat in our generational war against Islamofascism. Thanks for being a military chaplain. I too am a pastor and a chaplain but with no accomplishments like you Sir.
Obey is having fun with numbers!
Regards,
GtG
Murtha is just pissed that the wars are cutting into his pork money.
The cowards are not doing the one thing that they can do to completely bring the war to a halt and this is to cut funding. They have that power and still cry and whine about Bush. I could never vote for such pathetic losers.
Of course they did. That’s what Rats do best. It’s their answer to every issue.
as usual w/ this crowd; all show and no go
The excellent news is that the President will easily veto such a treasonous act.
That's what makes them so entertaining. They have the "button" to end it tomorrow and all they really can do is squawk.
I have liberal friends and judging from them, most liberals are too uninformed to know that the Democratic controlled Congress can cut off the funds and end the war tomorrow. This ignorance is why Democrats in Congress keep throwing up these meaningless bills aimed at Bush to keep the uninformed moonbats thinking it's all Bush's fault that they can't end the war.
Democrats know how to play to a dumb voter base.
Seriously, I do not think this war tax is a good idea necessarily , but how would you all suggest we pay for this war instead of saddling our kids and grandkids with it? It is a reasonable question, don’t you think?
The US brings in $2.7 trillion per year in revenue from taxes and duties. I suggest start cutting entitlement programs and pork and sliming down useless government agencies.
Cut spending. Most of the war expense has been extracted from the existing military budget anyway. As a percent of GDP, military spending is at about the same level now as it was in the early nineties, so the notion that the war is blowing the budget is a bit disengenuous. If they want to balance the budget (and they don’t), then they should ditch the health care proposals they’ve made, and fix social security and medicare. The main reason that the budget is so far in the negative in recent years is that the social security surplus has dwindled, and medicare is running a ballooning deficit.
Thanks all for your input.
Brings me to another question....what do we do about SS? What do you think is a good plan for the next POTUS?
I don’t think it’s possible to fix social security at this late date. You could of course increase taxes to the level that they would pay for the benefits, but that is not “fixing” it. It’s just shifting the burden of social security to the next generation. You could cut benefits, but that is not “fixing” it either. It’s just admitting defeat. It’s too late to fix it solely by privatization. That might have worked when Clinton was President, but we’ve dug the hole much deeper since then.
The only thing a GOP President could do is make the following speech:
“As you know, social security is woefully underfunded, and the nation is not able to make the payments that would be required to continue the benefits until the current generation retires.
“Prior Republican administrations have tried to fix this problem, but each time they have, the Democrats have demogogued the issue for their own political gain.
“Let’s be clear: The Democrats invented social security. The Democrats made the solemn promise that if you paid into this trust fund, the monies you paid into it would be available to support you in your old age. And the Democrats have increased their political power by recklessly expanding the benefits of social security beyond any reasonable expectation that the nation would be able to honor the promises they made.
“At this point, there is no point in a Republican President again trying to fix the social security system. Such an effort would simply be met with more demogoguery from the Democrats, and nothing would be accomplished.
“If the Democrats want to salvage their reputation and honor their promise to the American people, then I invite them to pass a bill fixing social security. They are in control of the Congress. It is their responsibility as the people’s elected representatives to honor the commitments they’ve made.
“And I make this promise: If the Democrats can pass a bill fixing social security for every American now working, then I will sign it into law. The ball is in their court. Good luck.”
Of course, no matter what they pass, it won’t “fix” social security, so there is no real likelihood that the President would be required to sign anything into law, even if the Dems could pass something. But my suspicion is that the Dems would do absolutely nothing. In order to close the gap by increasing taxes, they’d have to immediately increase the payroll tax rate to 20%. That ain’t gonna happen.
But at least a speech like this would dramatize the Democrats’ fraud.
Brilliant, I love your posts! Thank you for responding. I learn a lot!
Regarding this part:
“Let’s be clear: The Democrats invented social security. The Democrats made the solemn promise that if you paid into this trust fund, the monies you paid into it would be available to support you in your old age. And the Democrats have increased their political power by recklessly expanding the benefits of social security beyond any reasonable expectation that the nation would be able to honor the promises they made.
When was SS created and was it created by democrats and why?
And why do they always blame the Repubs for ruining it or having no solutions for it?
It was invented by Roosevelt during the depression. The Dems blame the GOP because the GOP has spent the last 75 years trying to inject some realism into the system. Realism means that you’ve got to pay out no more in benefits than you collect in social security taxes. Unfortunately, that is not politically popular. The Dems have promised far more than they can deliver, and the only way to pay for it is to increase payroll taxes from their current 12.4% to about 20%, and that is if you did it today. If you wait, it will be a lot higher.
Thank you, jaz.
If we picked murtha’s pockets, we could pay for the war and probably a lot more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.