WSJ Editorial: Reviving an LBJ golden oldie
Congressional Democrats have tried about every possible ploy to "end the war" in Iraq, albeit without having to take responsibility by cutting off funds. Now in their frustration, they're trying to revive an LBJ golden oldie -- a war "surtax."
House Appropriations Chairman David Obey entered Congress in 1969, so perhaps he had a Vietnam flashback this week when he announced the new tax to "pay for" the war in Iraq. He was joined by fellow House spending barons Jack Murtha and Jim McGovern, who said they hope to raise $140 billion to $150 billion annually by imposing a new 2% baseline levy on almost all taxpayers, ranging up to 15% for the highest brackets. Now, that's a surtax.
Their argument, echoed often in the media, is that such a tax is needed because war spending is busting the budget and crowding out domestic priorities. Iraq "will result in draining the Treasury so dry that it will result in systematic disinvestment of America's future," Mr. Obey says, with his customary understatement. "We need to stop pretending that this war doesn't cost anything." Someone's pretending, all right, but it is those who claim that Iraq spending represents some unique and overwhelming fiscal burden.
In fact, the U.S. is spending relatively little on defense by historic wartime standards, and that's including the $192 billion in 2007 to fund the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's true that overall defense spending, in dollars adjusted for inflation, is higher than it was during the 1990s. And thank heaven for that. Defense spending as a share of the economy in the Clinton years dipped to its lowest level since 1940, as we lived under the illusion of a "peace dividend" while al Qaeda was gaining strength....
Read entire article at WSJ
House Appropriations Chairman David Obey entered Congress in 1969, so perhaps he had a Vietnam flashback this week when he announced the new tax to "pay for" the war in Iraq. He was joined by fellow House spending barons Jack Murtha and Jim McGovern, who said they hope to raise $140 billion to $150 billion annually by imposing a new 2% baseline levy on almost all taxpayers, ranging up to 15% for the highest brackets. Now, that's a surtax.
Their argument, echoed often in the media, is that such a tax is needed because war spending is busting the budget and crowding out domestic priorities. Iraq "will result in draining the Treasury so dry that it will result in systematic disinvestment of America's future," Mr. Obey says, with his customary understatement. "We need to stop pretending that this war doesn't cost anything." Someone's pretending, all right, but it is those who claim that Iraq spending represents some unique and overwhelming fiscal burden.
In fact, the U.S. is spending relatively little on defense by historic wartime standards, and that's including the $192 billion in 2007 to fund the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's true that overall defense spending, in dollars adjusted for inflation, is higher than it was during the 1990s. And thank heaven for that. Defense spending as a share of the economy in the Clinton years dipped to its lowest level since 1940, as we lived under the illusion of a "peace dividend" while al Qaeda was gaining strength....