Lawmakers Propose 'War Surtax' to Pay for Troop Increase in Afghanistan
Earl Evleth
by
FOXNews.com
Two top Democrats say they want to impose a new tax on the wealthy to
finance any increase in U.S. troops for the Afghanistan war.�
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the purse string-controlling House
Appropriations Committee, is calling the idea a "war surtax." He said that
just as the federal government is expected to pay for its proposed
intervention in the health care sector with new taxes, any escalated
involvement in Afghanistan should come with a payment plan.�
"If we have to pay for the health care bill, we should pay for the war as
well ... by having a war surtax," Obey told ABC News in an interview that
aired Monday. "The problem in this country with this issue is that the only
people that has to sacrifice are military families and they've had to go to
the well again and again and again and again, and everybody else is blithely
unaffected by the war."�
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is making
a similar demand.�
President Obama plans to hold his ninth meeting Monday evening with his
national security team to discuss options for overhauling the strategy in
Afghanistan. The president has been considering requests for tens of
thousands more U.S. troops from his top commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal,
for nearly three months. He is not expected to announce his new strategy
before Thanksgiving.�
But any request would likely come with a hefty price tag. One option
presented by McChrystal would bring 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan -- a
proposal estimated to cost about $40 billion, according to the Office of
Management and Budget.�
Obey said if an increase like that is approved without any payment
mechanism, then other domestic initiatives would be wiped out.�
"On the merits I think it's a mistake to deepen our involvement. But if we
are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we
don't, if we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out
every other initiative that we have to rebuild our economy," he said. "Ain't
going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan."�
Obey's proposal would be a "graduated tax" on income. It reportedly would
start at 1 percent for low-income earners and rise to 5 percent for
high-income earners.�He's calling it a surtax because it would essentially
be a tax on income that is already subject to federal income tax.�
Levin, D-Mich., offered a similar proposal in an interview with Bloomberg
Television. He said he wants an additional tax on those making more than
$200,000 or $250,000.�
"They have done incredibly well, and I think that it's important that we pay
for it if we possibly can," Levin said.�
But the tax talk comes as Congress is already considering new taxes and fees
to pay for health care reform. The proposals put out by the House and Senate
versions include taxes on high-value health care plans as well as new taxes
on the wealthy.�
Asked about the resistance he would likely face in a push for new taxes to
finance the Afghanistan war, Obey suggested he would use his position as
chairman to push his demand.�
"I'm going to be there fighting to get whatever they do paid for," he said.
"I don't give up before I start." �
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> Lawmakers Propose 'War Surtax' to Pay for Troop Increase in Afghanistan
>
As opposed to a tax to pay for the social programmes that Obama
keeps increasing. Why is it always war that has to be paid for with
new taxes?
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
Earl Evleth
'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> Why is it always war that has to be paid for with
> new taxes?
When has that happened in recent American history?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
All the time it's argued for by the Liberalists. They care less
about paying for their social largess. For example, are they going
to assert the need to actually pay for the repeated extensions of
unemployment benefits? Especially via some means other than a
surtax on employment generators, that is businesses.
Happy99
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
news:4B0AC41E...@yahoo.co.uk...
Runge17
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
<tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> a �crit dans le message de
news:4B0AC41E...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>