Lieberman Proposed War Tax

[Chet Lemon]

Source

 

Enter Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, who last Thursday proposed a new tax to raise money for troops. The "Support Our Troops Tax" would raise $50 billion per year over the next five years to pay for defense and veterans benefits and services. The proposal, coming in the form of an amendment to the fiscal 2008 budget, is what Senator Lieberman calls the need for a "shared sacrifice."

[Balta1701]

Something that should have been passed a long time ago, IMO. Paying $750 billion out of bonds to finance a war while cutting taxes is just asking for long-term trouble.

[mr_genius]

i got an idea, how about cutting pork instead of raising taxes?

 

that 21 billion the Dems just tried to tack on would be a nice start.

[Balta1701]

i got an idea, how about cutting pork instead of raising taxes?

 

that 21 billion the Dems just tried to tack on would be a nice start.

Here's an even better idea...end the Iraq debacle. That'll save us that $21 billion in like a week and a half.

[mr_genius]

Here's an even better idea...end the Iraq debacle. That'll save us that $21 billion in like a week and a half.

 

i fine with that too

 

[Balta1701]

i fine with that too

 

And to top it off...that $20 billion is stuck in the Iraq war supplemental in order to get it passed (it'll be vetoed anyway)...so you get the best of both worlds!

[mr_genius]

And to top it off...that $20 billion is stuck in the Iraq war supplemental in order to get it passed (it'll be vetoed anyway)...so you get the best of both worlds!

 

oh, i'm sure they'll tack that 21 billion onto some other bill.

[Balta1701]

oh, i'm sure they'll tack that 21 billion onto some other bill.

Most of it is at least tangentially hurricane-relief related spending, at least the big chunks are, so you're probably right. That's what we get for Trusting Mr. Bush with U.S. cities.

[mr_genius]

Most of it is at least tangentially hurricane-relief related spending, at least the big chunks are, so you're probably right. That's what we get for Trusting Mr. Bush with U.S. cities.

 

yea, i'm pretty sure that money isn't going to spent very efficiently.

[Texsox]

Finally. Of course if people had to actually pay for the war it might hurt support.

[mr_genius]

Finally. Of course if people had to actually pay for the war it might hurt support.

 

If that was directed towards me, it doesn't make much sense. I've been against the Iraq war since the beginning.

 

If it was just a generalization, you may be correct. I'm sure most Americans don't realize how much money it's costing. But most Americans don't realize a lot things.

[Texsox]

If that was directed towards me, it doesn't make much sense. I've been against the Iraq war since the beginning.

 

If it was just a generalization, you may be correct. I'm sure most Americans don't realize how much money it's costing. But most Americans don't realize a lot things.

 

It was a generalization. One of the problems I see with running deficits, for whatever reason, is it makes it much easier for politicians to spend money. We aren't actually paying for this stuff, with interest, someone else is when the economy grows. Other people will be paying for this.

 

I want our leaders to be accountable for spending this money, and the best way I see that is having a vote that states, we need to raise taxes to pay for this war. The cynic in me would like their kids to be the first to enlist, but I realize that is wrong on many levels.

 

I was for a version of this war and realized it was a now win vote. Vote against and later discover WMD, bad decision. The what ifs were pretty serious. I don't have a problem with anyone who supported invading based on the intel that we were believing.

 

At this point, no wmd, no Saddam, 4 years of hell for that country should be a deterrent to the next country to try and f*** with us, so let's bid adieu and bring them home with a victory parade. Mission Accomplished!

[FlaSoxxJim]

Something that should have been passed a long time ago, IMO.

 

Not only that, new legislation should be created that ties a war tax rate directly to the numbber of troops deployed into combat situations. You want another 100K troops in Iraq? That's another half-cent tax or whatever rate is appropriate. You want to begin a new campaign in Iran, that's a higher war tax rate.

 

If anything should be pay-as-you-go, it should be funding combat military operations. It might drive the cost home to the average person a little more clearly.

 

At any rate, I think with the introduction of a bill like this Boltin' Joe won't have anybody on either side of the aisle to sit at the lunch table with.

[Texsox]

At any rate, I think with the introduction of a bill like this Boltin' Joe won't have anybody on either side of the aisle to sit at the lunch table with.

 

I also think social programs should also carry a price tag, not just overseas social programs.

[southsider2k5]

Most of it is at least tangentially hurricane-relief related spending, at least the big chunks are, so you're probably right. That's what we get for Trusting Mr. Bush with U.S. cities.

 

It depends on what your definion of most is. It looks to be about 25-30% of the total $20-25 billion of earmarks. Personally I don't understand if this stuff is as important as they say it is, why the Dems can't just live up to their campaign promises to stop earmarks, and pass these as separate bills on their own merits.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/27/pet...=rss_topstories

 

$4.2 billion in disaster aid for farmers hurt by drought, floods and other disasters in recent years.

 

$6.7 billion in additional federal efforts to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, including housing aid, public infrastructure funding and aid to Gulf Coast fishermen.

 

$3.1 billion to implement a 2005 round of military base closures, which helps local communities affected by military base closings paves the way for redeployment of 12,000 troops stationed in Germany and South Korea to domestic bases.

 

$2 billion for national security efforts such as port security, explosives detection for airline baggage and rail and mass transit security grants.

 

$1.2 billion over the next five years for renewal of an income subsidy program for small-operation dairy farmers

 

$747 million to ease a shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides health care to children from low-income families.

 

$640 million in heating subsidies for the poor and elderly.

 

$500 million to combat Western wildfires.

 

$100 million for state and local law enforcement agencies in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul to provide security for next year's presidential nominating conventions.

 

$24 million to cover crop losses from flooding two years ago, for sugar beet growers in the Red River Valley stand to get

 

$20 million obtained by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, to combat Mormon crickets.

 

$3.5 million for guided tours of the U.S. Capitol

 

$3 million aimed at a sugar cane cooperative in Hawaii

[Rex Kickass]

Dumb question: but is it possible that a lot of these excess spending items might have been avoided had an actual budget been passed this fiscal year?

[NorthSideSox72]

It depends on what your definion of most is. It looks to be about 25-30% of the total $20-25 billion of earmarks. Personally I don't understand if this stuff is as important as they say it is, why the Dems can't just live up to their campaign promises to stop earmarks, and pass these as separate bills on their own merits.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/27/pet...=rss_topstories

 

$4.2 billion in disaster aid for farmers hurt by drought, floods and other disasters in recent years.

 

$6.7 billion in additional federal efforts to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, including housing aid, public infrastructure funding and aid to Gulf Coast fishermen.

 

$3.1 billion to implement a 2005 round of military base closures, which helps local communities affected by military base closings paves the way for redeployment of 12,000 troops stationed in Germany and South Korea to domestic bases.

 

$2 billion for national security efforts such as port security, explosives detection for airline baggage and rail and mass transit security grants.

 

$1.2 billion over the next five years for renewal of an income subsidy program for small-operation dairy farmers

 

$747 million to ease a shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides health care to children from low-income families.

 

$640 million in heating subsidies for the poor and elderly.

 

$500 million to combat Western wildfires.

 

$100 million for state and local law enforcement agencies in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul to provide security for next year's presidential nominating conventions.

 

$24 million to cover crop losses from flooding two years ago, for sugar beet growers in the Red River Valley stand to get

 

$20 million obtained by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, to combat Mormon crickets.

 

$3.5 million for guided tours of the U.S. Capitol

 

$3 million aimed at a sugar cane cooperative in Hawaii

1. If these are important, then they should have been passed in a bill (or bills) for funding agriculture and/or disaster relief. If they can stand on their own merit, then why the earmark?

 

2. Of the last 9 items (everything from the $1.2B for dairy farmers on down), I see about 4 that are even worth spending money on. The rest is garbage.

[Texsox]

1. If these are important, then they should have been passed in a bill (or bills) for funding agriculture and/or disaster relief. If they can stand on their own merit, then why the earmark?

 

2. Of the last 9 items (everything from the $1.2B for dairy farmers on down), I see about 4 that are even worth spending money on. The rest is garbage.

 

The only reason I could think of regarding #1 is the time and effort to pass so many separate bills.

 

Regarding #2, it's dangerous to look at a one line description and passing judgment. A couple look suspicious to me, like the sugar can coop, but the others seem reasonable. I know the Western State ranchers have been having problems with grasshoppers and Mormon crickets and it's a shared cost between them and the government with the government picking up the smaller chunk. IIRC it's like 75% rancher 25% US. I like helping more than pikcing up the entire tab kind of solutions.

[southsider2k5]

Dumb question: but is it possible that a lot of these excess spending items might have been avoided had an actual budget been passed this fiscal year?

 

No, because the same stuff happens in the budget bills.

[Texsox]

In a strange ironic twist, items that they may have been trying to pass iin "the dark of the night" have a spotlight shone on by picking this bill. An educated public is our best defense against poor leadership.

[Rex Kickass]

No, because the same stuff happens in the budget bills.

 

I'm aware of that, but fiscal 06-07 has no actual budget. The Congress last year never passed one. I'm not defending pork spending or anything like that - but my question is, had an actual budget been passed last year, would most of this stuff actually been needed to vote on - say- now rather than months ago when it should have come up for vote in the first place?

[kapkomet]

I'm aware of that, but fiscal 06-07 has no actual budget. The Congress last year never passed one. I'm not defending pork spending or anything like that - but my question is, had an actual budget been passed last year, would most of this stuff actually been needed to vote on - say- now rather than months ago when it should have come up for vote in the first place?

Again, no. They would have found other pet projects to buy the necessary votes, regardless of these.

[southsider2k5]

Again, no. They would have found other pet projects to buy the necessary votes, regardless of these.

 

Yeah, I agree. I am sure there would have been a Issac C Elston mueseum needed in Michigan City or some other crap they would have dug up to pay someone off for a vote, on either side of the aisle.