Two
former advisers to George W. Bush had a spirited debate on Sunday
morning over the possibility of a surtax to pay for a troop escalation
in Afghanistan.
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Dan Senor, a neoconservative war
hawk who served as Bush's spokesman in Iraq, called proposals for
taxing the rich to pay for the war a backdoor effort to derail any
surge in forces. He was opposed by another Bush hand, former
communications honcho Matthew Dowd -- a GOP traditionalist -- who said
it was unfair to have an increase in troops without a shared social
sacrifice.
The whole exchange is worthwhile, but the below portion was particularly illuminating:
SENOR: Let's be honest about what this is about. It's about
a campaign against President Obama's troops surge. It's not really
about paying for it. It's about arguing against it.
GEORGE WILL: And there's going to be no surtax. We all agree on that. So everyone, relax.
DOWD: I agree with you. There is not going to be a tax. But I think
this goes to a fundamental value that I think we lost, which is that we
can get things for nothing. That we can go to war and not have to pay
for it either by cutting the budget or doing something else.
We have a
war; we don't have a draft. All of these sorts of things, that we
think, 'Oh, by way, we can go fight the most important war in the
history of our country, but we're not going to have a draft, we're not
going to pay for it, we're not going to do anything that causes anybody
to sacrifice.'
SENOR: If [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [House Appropriations
Committee Chairman David] Obey were being intellectually honest about
this they would wage a war against the President's surge policy
Wednesday morning. As opposed to doing this via some proposed surtax.
[Snip]
DOWD: David Obey's idea I think underlines the problem that we don't
ask people -- when we say these things are important -- we don't ask
the country to come together for them.
Coming days before President Obama is set to announce an increase in
roughly 30,000 to 35,000 troops in Afghanistan, the debate between
Senor and Dowd provides a window into the Republican Party's internal
divisions.
Rightardia comment: As the cost of the Iraq War approaches $ 1 trillion (see http://costofwar.com/), people like Dan Senor whine about taxes. The blood of the poor and the middle class have paid for most wars while the rich have financed them.
Of course, Bush started two wars and was the first president in US history who did not raise taxes to pay for them. Instead he cut the top two tax brackets for the most affluent American, cut the capital gains tax to 17 per cent and suspended the Estate Tax. The tax cuts and the wars doubled the US national debt.
Keep in mind, too, that recessions invariably follow the end of a wars and the US is already in one of the worst recessions in its history. The simplest way to pay for this war would be to increase the capital gains tax and restore the Estate Tax. Let the people who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts pay for this war. We don't need another regressive surtax on the middle class.
See the rest of the article at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/29/gop-wages-internal-debate_n_373063.html
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed:
feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 5023 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
