On the “War Tax”, as proposed by Democrats

For the past few years the question has been at the front of everyone’s mind: how in the world are we going to pay for the “War on Terror”? Somehow the president and the GOP decided that it makes sense to spend nearly a trillion dollars on a war, but not only do no real economic buckling-down, but in fact lower taxes. Our surplus to deficit swing of nearly ten trillion dollars should give you an idea of how well that’s been going.

A solution has popped up, though. Three House Democrats, including my very own Jack Murtha, have proposed a bill that would increase taxes to pay for the war. Unsurprisingly, it came under heavy fire from Republicans. Surprisingly, it came under heavy fire from Democrats as well.

“Just as I have opposed the war from the outset … I am opposed to a war surtax,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

That’s great, Nancy. I opposed the war from the outset too, but unfortunately unless we find a way to make a pill that makes us crap out hundred dollar bills then we’re going to have to pass the cost to someone at some point. If not us, then our children or our grandchildren are going to be shouldering the near trillion dollar bill the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have built up.

So I ask the world at large: why shouldn’t we pay the bill now? Not only should taxes go up to pay for next year’s chunk of the war, but there should be a law in place that requires that taxes go up to finance any war. Period.

One of the most baffling parts of the Iraq Fiasco is that the general public is so far removed from the battlefront and the pains of war that it just becomes a battle of ideals. Either you think we should defeat terrorism or you don’t, and the whole thing is happening in a very “over there” type of way.

If someone woke up from a coma and didn’t watch the cable news networks, it would be very easy to be unaware that a war was going on at all. Take a look at this commercial that the Army is running now with their “Army Strong” slogan.

There’s no mention of Iraq, terrorists, or a war in general. The commercial simply appeals to young men’s desire to be tough. It completely eschews the battleground aside from showing a few guys running toward a helicopter and for the most part focuses on physical fitness. There are variants that look at computer programmers and the like. Many advertise paying for college and a lifelong career.

According to the military, it seems, there’s no difference between enlisting with them and having a job at a local company except you feel a whole lot manlier.

Unlike during the second World War, our movie stars and our Saturday morning cartoons aren’t telling us to buy war bonds to help give our military money for equipment. There are no war bonds and there will be no war tax because people don’t want to pay for it. They don’t want to pay for the war or see its casualties. The people want the War on Terror to be fought in Idea Land, where we simply think about being tough on terrorism but neither have to deal with the consequences nor make any sacrifices in order to facilitate it.

Military recruiters can’t talk about sacrificing your life in order to defend the nation and its freedoms because the fallen in Iraq haven’t been commemorated that way. From the onset an effort to hide the dead, to sanitize the war was made. There will be no Vietnam Wall because the war-supporting wing of the government doesn’t want to see those dead bodies. Bodies from 9/11, sure, but not from Iraq.

That’s why anti-war activists are the ones reading the names of those killed in battle. The pro-war right doesn’t want to think about them.

For all the bleating people like Rush, Hannity, and whoever else make about how the war is crucial and honorable, they do very little to commemorate the dead. As far as I know, there hasn’t been a right-wing radio broadcast devoted solely to the casualties of the war. If I’m wrong, let me know.

It all feeds into one simple principle, one I hate to say yet again but think it bears repeating. The biggest problem with the War on Terror is that no one wants to act like it’s happening beyond bumper stickers and talking points. Those who shout that the war should continue want tax breaks and not to have to see dead bodies on TV. They want their lives to continue completely unchanged by a trillion dollar war that, according to them, will decide the fate of civilization as we know it.

Which is funny, if you think about it. If you listen to the propaganda, the outcome of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and possibly Iran) determine the destiny of all humanity. The future of democracy hangs in the balance, Bush jabbed his finger at Matt Lauer and said he was quite literally protecting Matt’s children with these wars. To them, this is the most important endeavor America has embarked upon since we entered WWII.

Yet they don’t want to have to do anything. They adopt a “leave it for someone else” attitude. Someone else can die for it. Some other generation can pay for it.

They accept changes in the law because they honestly believe it won’t affect them. Notice that the argument for NSA spying contains the dichotomy of both saying sacrifices are necessary to ensure security but also that innocent people have nothing to hide. If the latter is true, then it nullifies the former claim.

This is why the right is so happy to beat drums of war for the future invasion of Iran. They have seen that two wars can happen all on television, requiring they do nothing but sit back and wave little flags and not worry about that odd little clicking sound when they talk on the phone.

This is why we need not only need to impose this war tax, but a future tax on any budget made for war. It’s not to drive up taxes, that’s a misrepresentation that is almost certainly deliberate. It’s to make those who would sign a declaration of war against anyone who makes a mean face at America stop and think first. If they’re forced to jack up taxes to pay for war, maybe they’ll be less cavalier about waging war.