I have thought for some time that the quickest way to end the war would be to add a surtax to the incomes of the top ten percent, the bloated oil company profits and the profits of the largest corporations. These groups would be ready to pull out in no time.
That is the subject of Tom Friedman's commentary this morning,
Charge It to My Kids
Every so often a quote comes out of the Bush administration that leaves you asking: Am I crazy or are they? I had one of those moments last week when Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, was asked about a proposal by some Congressional Democrats to levy a surtax to pay for the Iraq war, and she responded, “We’ve always known that Democrats seem to revert to type, and they are willing to raise taxes on just about anything.”Of course if Tom had been paying attention for the last six years he would realize that this kind of "crazy talk" is all we ever get from the Bush administration. Tom continues:
Yes, those silly Democrats. They’ll raise taxes for anything, even — get this — to pay for a war!
Of course, we can pay for the Iraq war without a tax increase. The question is, can we pay for it and be making the investments in infrastructure, science and education needed to propel our country into the 21st century? Visit Singapore, Japan, Korea, China or parts of Europe today and you’ll discover that the infrastructure in our country is not keeping pace with our peers’.Of course the Bush administration is anything but conservative and really doesn't give a rats ass about anything other than letting their friends steal from the pockets of the US treasury and from the pockets of the American people.
We can pay for anything today if we want to stop investing in tomorrow. The president has already slashed the National Institutes of Health research funding the past two years. His 2008 budget wants us to cut money for vocational training, infrastructure and many student aid programs.
Does the Bush team really believe that if we had a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax — which could reduce our dependence on Middle East oil dictators, and reduce payroll taxes for low-income workers, pay down the deficit and fund the development of renewable energy — we would be worse off as a country?
Excuse me, Ms. Perino, but I wish Republicans would revert to type. I thought they were, well, conservatives — the kind of people who saved for rainy days, who invested in tomorrow for their kids, folks who didn’t believe in free lunches or free wars.
Of course, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the Democrat David Obey, in proposing an Iraq war tax to help balance the budget was expressing his displeasure with the war. But he was also making a very important point when he said, “If this war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for.”Of course for Cheney and Bush the war in Iraq was never about "the struggle against radical Islam", it was always about oil and profits for the richest of the rich.
The struggle against radical Islam is the fight of our generation. We all need to pitch in — not charge it on our children’s Visa cards. Previous American generations connected with our troops by making sacrifices at home — we’ve never passed on the entire cost of a war to the next generation, said Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, who has written a history — “The Price of Liberty” — about how America has paid for its wars since 1776.
“In every major war we have fought in the 19th and 20th centuries,” said Mr. Hormats, “Americans have been asked to pay higher taxes — and nonessential programs have been cut — to support the military effort. Yet during this Iraq war, taxes have been lowered and domestic spending has climbed. In contrast to World War I, World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam, for most Americans this conflict has entailed no economic sacrifice. The only people really sacrificing for this war are the troops and their families.”
In his celebrated Farewell Address, Mr. Hormats noted, George Washington warned against “ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burdens we ourselves ought to bear.”
Angry Bear on Ms Perino
With Tony Blow as press secretary, we could count on a daily dosage of stupidity and mendacity. But Tony was neither as dumb nor as dishonest as Dana Perino. Is the White House taking great joy in the fact that every time she opens her mouth, I think “what nuttiness is going to from out of this blonde bimbo’s mouth now”?So why is the embarrassment than is Dana Perino there? What person with even half a brain would take the job at this point?