Iraq War Hardball: Tax the Rich to Pay for It
-
Bob FertikWant to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
We now know that resolutions - binding or non-binding - will not stop Bush's escalation or bring U.S. troops safely home from Iraq. As Russ Feingold says, it's time to play Hardball.
Today Feingold is working with other anti-escalation Senators (led by Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, and Jim Webb) to attach a binding resolution to the upcoming vote on implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations. While that is excellent, it will not get a veto-proof majority of 67 votes, and even if it did, it would only stop the escalation, not end the war as the majority of Americans want.
The most direct route to end the war would be to cut all funding for it - except to bring our troops home safely. Two Senators support the idea - Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Ben Cardin (D-MD). In the House, cutting funds has been proposed in several bills (McGovern, Nadler, Woolsey/Lee/Waters, etc.), but it is doomed to fail because Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly declared "Democrats will not cut funds for troops in the field." (The obvious answer to Pelosi is: bring them home so they're not in the field - but Pelosi says that answer, just like impeachment, is "off the table.")
So how else can we play Hardball? My plan is simple: when the $100 billion+ Supplemental comes before Congress to pay for the coming year's warmaking, Democrats should attach an amendment to tax the rich to pay for it.
Why would that end the war? Because the very last thing Republicans will do is raise taxes on the rich. If we force Republicans to choose between ending the war and raising taxes on the rich, they will end the war. By my count, this amendment would get exactly one vote from the only "true believer" in Bush's War, Joe Lieberman, who suggested a "war on terrorism tax" at a Senate hearing on Tuesday - and got a resounding NO from the left and right.
When I was in Washington last week, I proposed that concept to several Democrats, notably Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rep. Charlie Rangel. The conversations were 30 seconds each - as they got into the elevator - but both said they liked the idea and would think about introducing it.
This morning Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) was interviewed on FOX and said Bush was completely wrong to avoid paying for the war. Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said taxes should be raised to pay for it.
So my idea is right in the mainstream of Democratic thinking, but no Democrat has thought of proposing it as a bill. So I need your help to turn this idea to reality: call the following Members with this simple message: "Amend the Supplemental to tax the rich to pay for the Iraq War."
- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (202-225-5871)
- Rep. Barbara Lee (202-225-2661)
- Rep. Jim McGovern (202-225-6101)
- Rep. Jim McDermott (202-225-3106)
- Rep. Jerry Nadler (202-225-5635)
- Rep. Charlie Rangel (202-225-4365)
- Rep. Pete Stark (202-225-5065)
- Rep. Maxine Waters (202-225-2201)
- Sen. Robert Byrd (202-224-3954)
- Sen. Ben Cardin (202-224-4524)
- Sen. Chris Dodd (202-224-2823)
- Sen. Russ Feingold (202-224-5323)
- Sen. Carl Levin (202-224-6221)
- Sen. John Kerry (202-224-2742)
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (202-224-4543)
- Sen. Jim Webb (202-224-4024)
Update 1: Joe Lieberman
- Bob Fertik's blog
- |
- Login or register to post comments
- |
-
- |
Top Actions
-
23,210 of 30,000
-
42,759 of 60,000
-
94,687 of 100,000
Comments
TAXING THE RICH
to pay for the Iraqi war makes sense to me. This would be turn-around from what Bush Administration has been doing, like starting a War and cutting Taxes for the Rich and the poor have been giving their blood and life for a War time racketeering by the Rich! Sounds good to me!
I'm for it, as long as its the rich who really do pay for it.
I would be for this as long as its really the rich who actually pay for it and not working class people. Some not so bright Democrats think that taxing the rich means putting a tax on big oil or Walmart. Hmmm, gee, who ends up paying those taxes? The working class, thats who, because all those companies do is just raise their prices. The only real tax that the rich do pay for is luxury taxes, like on big houses and boats. My suggestion is raise the property taxes on houses that are over 5000 square ft. Or better yet, why don't we use the new Eminent Domain laws to confiscate those houses, sell them and use the proceeds to fund the war. Another good idea is make all fines, like for speeding, a percentage of your pay check, say 10%, rather than $150 bucks across the board, thats pocket change for rich people.
there are lots of ways
to target truly rich people and rich people only, such as
i'm no expert on tax policy but there are many experts and they can figure out the best ways to do this.
Bob, I agree with your suggestions about the rich.
We should also require our country go back to pre-Reagan tax levels after our national debt is paid.
We are still paying off the Reagan debt from over twenty years ago. His fight against Communism and the Cold War was a lie and cost us dearly. The Russian threat to us was a lie just like every other "war" for freedom. They weren't as strong as Reagan made us believe. We almost went bankrupt too in the arms race. We have so many weapons now we don't know how to store or get rid of them.
The criminals in Russia are not gone. It should have been a fight against tryanny and robbery. It wasn't Commmunism but bad leadership and criminality which was a treat to the world.
Clinton's tax on the rich helped erase some of the national debt. We still had rich who got even richer with a thriving stock market and economy.
When the technology sector in CA made them rich and powerful Republicans set out to destroy their liberal political power. Technology companies were "out sourced". The best and brightest of our educated left without jobs. Huge numbers of illegals swamped their education system and lowered wages for the few jobs left. Elections were stolen for Republican leaders.
We should have a goal to bring those up not force them down even lower. To say our government is headed in the "wrong direction" is an understatement. A "criminal direction" is more like it. A huge shift of wealth from the middle class to the top elite is the crime.
If our country and the world has a world depression from wars and debt, we will all go down together. A few might profit but their lives won't be enjoyable in the end. They will live in fear from robbers, wars, political enemies, etc.
The greedy and power-hungry usually end up lying in their own failure plus destroy all around them.
At Least in the mid 80's,
At Least in the mid 80's, the ecomony got better under the reagan adminstration than this one, bush is destroyed the reagan legacy just as much.
Even some reagan supporters like Paul Craig Roberts have finally saw the light.
Bush is not a conserative nor even a liberal, he's a neoconserative and a despicable man.
Re: At Least in the mid 80's,
I don't know which United States you lived in during
the 1980's, but the economy hardly got better under
Reagan.
This says it in a nutshell:
"In the United States, during the greed-oriented decade of the 1980's, hostile takeovers, deregulatory strategies favoring investors and leveraged buy-outs in the private sector resulted in a collapse of major markets and financial institutions, weakening the economy. Cutbacks in productivity and innovation caused the United States to lose ground in its technological leadership, resulting in trade deficits, budget deficits and industrial stagnation. Health care became inaccessible to many. Home ownership, virtually taken for granted from the late 1940's to the mid-1970's, became almost impossible for first-time buyers until the market collapsed under its own weight in the late 1980's, while paper wealth equity created a tremendous windfall for those who got in and out of the cycle at opportune times, as inflation in housing galloped at a rate far above general inflation. Poverty, desperation, lack of educational and employment opportunities or mental health services drove increased numbers to drugs, crime and violence. While the middle class shrank and poverty became more widespread, wealth was increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few who benefited greatly -- with the result that sales of luxury cars, multi-million dollar homes, expensive artwork and costly electronic toys increased dramatically" [Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor, Random House,1990]..
Economy under Reagan?
Maybe the mid 80s was good for you but many parts of the country were struggling and losing jobs (like Buffalo,NY who lost half their population). There were the Savings and Loan Scandals, etc. Our debt huge. Interest rates at 12%.
Many say the Cons used that bailout money to rape the North, etc. bringing it to the South for their take over of our government by the Bush family, etc. A Wall Street Journal article talked about the flow of wealth from the North to the South from the bailouts. The Bush family gang had a lot to do with that. None of them ended up in jail since GH Bush was President and lead robber at the time.
I remember graduating college with high marks and experience and still not being able to make a needed career change for my health.
Not as "bad" as the GW Bush administration but set the policy of criminal activity of the Cons in our government we see today.
Read the Book How George
Read the Book Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy and you'll see the light.
Bush is not even a reagan at all, he's more of a nixon, an Archsconserative who would do anything to get what he wants to buy his vote, as a conserative democrat and I Know George W. Bush is defintely not a conserative.
Bush is the worst president ever since Nixon.
Read the Article.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.drum.html
Re:Read the Book How George
Re:Read the Book How George-#2
Aside from being a horrible
Aside from being a horrible actor, Ronald Raygun was an even worse president. Like Dubya, he was an affable "front man" for a bunch of neoconservatives (see Gingrich et al) who never had an original thought in his life.
The Raygun administration was the pivotal point in the downfall of organized labor, and the "trickle down" theory of the rich vs. the poor economics. The only "supporters" that Raygun had, were the uber-rich, and the middle-class gullible.
So, if Ronald Raygun is one of your American heroes, then your priorities are very much in question.
One more thing
2 cents more about Raygun...he was invented as a politician by Adolph Coors.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell
Tax the Rich
The best reason I can think of to tax the rich to pay for this war is that this war is being conducted SPECIFICALLY to benefit the rich. LET THEM PAY FOR THEIR OWN WAR! The rest of us are being robbed blind by the corporatists who are the only ones who stand to gain from all this. I can think of nothing more satisfying than to assess all the costs of this war to the top 1% - 2% of the population that control 90% of the wealth.