Paying for the Surge
On Tuesday, December 1, President Obama gave a Presidential Address to the nation outlining his new strategy for the military engagement in Afghanistan. He announced an increase of 30,000 troops within the next six months, but also said that troops would begin coming home by July 2011. His speech touched on the history of the conflict, outlining his belief that the recent increase in Taliban attacks pose a national security threat to the United States and must be addressed by an increased military offensive. He vowed to fight the corruption within the government and also asked for the support of Pakistan. He insisted that the United States had no wish to occupy Afghanistan and he also denied any parallels between the war in Afghanistan and the Vietnam War. He finished with an insistence that the war is an effort for all of America, not just the troops: “I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose.”
The reaction to his speech has been mixed, but it seems that most people can find at least something to support within it. Democrats are skeptical of an increased offensive in a country with an incredibly corrupt government, but support his timetable and insistence on the autonomy of the Afghani people. Republicans were fully in favor of a troop increase, but believe that a deadline for the withdrawal of troops will just result in the Taliban waiting the 18 months until we pull out before making a resurgence. By both angering and pleasing nearly everyone, Obama has created an effective political compromise. He shouldn’t have too much difficulty getting funding from Congress. The problem now lies in where that funding will come from.
The troop increase is expected to cost around $30 billion. Obama said little about how he expects to pay for it, simply saying that he would “work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit”. With a deficit over $12 trillion and rising, Obama needs to find some way to cover the cost. Democrats have said that they are serious about lowering the deficit and there are rumors that it will be the central point to Obama’s first State of the Union address. This is their opportunity to prove it. Rather than continuing to pay on debt (where the iva advice helped at the right time with their services), Congress needs to find some way to fund this increase.
Recently Wisconsin Representative David Obey has introduced the Share the Sacrifice Act, which adds a war surtax on income taxes owed. Couples earning from $30,000 to $150,000 would pay 1% extra on their taxes owed, rather than income (e.g. if they made $100,000 and owed $4,000 in taxes, they would pay an additional $40). The President would set the tax rate for couples earning about $150,000. For the average American family, this would cost $50. The tax would exempt servicemen and women who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan and families that have lost a relative in the war. Obey plans for the tax to take effect in 2011 or possibly 2012.
This is a very sensible solution to the budget problem and it serves two functions. First, it enforces the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules that President Obama promised to follow. Congress needs to find a way to reduce the budget deficit and fund the new military increase. Second, the bill creates a sense of a shared sacrifice. Obey argues that the American people have no connection with this war. There is no national war effort as seen in the days of World War Two. Obey hopes that a tax will give Americans the sense of shared sacrifice that President Obama called for in his speech and that our soldiers deserve.
This tax is a test of the seriousness of the Democrats who want to address the rising deficit. While there are many ways that it can be reduced, eventually Congress will need to decide to either raise taxes or cut government spending. Many have claimed that they are serious deficit hawks; here is their chance to prove it. Also, this isn’t a bill that just Democrats can support. While Republicans have outlined a plan to use the unspent stimulus funds to fund the war, this would stifle the economy more than the proposed war tax would because it would take effect two years from now, when the economy should be doing better. Republicans are in support of the war and of reducing the deficit and this is the best plan to address both issues. If Congressmen and President Obama really want to decrease the deficit, then this bill needs to be passed.
(Article by Corey Donahue. He can be reached at corey.donahue@gmail.com)