Top Democrats try to pass the buck for ending the war onto the public
Posted on October 3rd, 2007 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, Congress, Dave Obey, House Appropriations Committee, House of Representives, Iraq, Jack Murtha, Jim McGovern, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, politics, taxes, war, warfare state, WisconsinTop House Democrats Tuesday proposed a “war surtax” to pay for the war in Iraq, a plan quickly condemned by Republicans and opposed by the House leadership.
The surtax would be “a percentage of your tax bill,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin. “And if you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war.”
The measure — sponsored by Obey, Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, and Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts — would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill, while higher-income taxpayers would add 12 to 15 percent, Obey said.
Isn’t ending the war Congress’ job? Isn’t that why they were given the majority in the legislative branch? Does anyone actually still believe that the D’s foreign policy isn’t the same as the neocons? This anti-intervention, anti-war lip service is most frustrating because the far left like MoveOn.org think the problem is Bush and the Republican neocons. The Democrat neocons are just as bad. The neocon ideology stems from the liberal’s heros like Wilson and FDR.
7 Responses to “Top Democrats try to pass the buck for ending the war onto the public”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
Please explain your beef with FDR, I find it irksome.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 am
I would think it’d be obvious. I’m a libertarian. FDR was a socialist/communist lite. There is no way I’d be able to go through all my beef with him here without a few hours of research and jotting down of notes so as to give you specifics.
A few things off the top of my head: Helped in pissing off the Japanese to get the USA into WWII, interment camps, packed courts with yes men and threatened to pack the Supreme Court to get his priorly declared unconstitutional New Deal acts left alone, the New Deal, pushed to raise taxes (income taxes up to 91% at one time), payroll taxes to pay for SSI, withholding taxes introduced in 1943, generally shit on the Constitution.
I don’t like Lincoln either… do I need to explain that one?
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Nope, I’ll take it one at a time. Thanks for the input, I wasn’t looking for specifics, just a general overview like you gave.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
In general, I (still) don’t think the Democrat’s foreign policy aims are the same as the neocons, especially concerning Iraq. The Republicans, their neocon’s in particular, are still interested in saving face in Iraq. I think the Democrats (and most none-neo-con Republicans) are interested in whatever will get them elected president. At this point in time, that means less Iraq. Without doing research, I’d guess that the Democrats are less concerned with passing the buck to the public, than forcing the hand of the Republicans. That’s the nice thing you can do when you are the slight majority party. Otherwise they can’t get the votes because they don’t have a large enough majority. That’s probably a good thing.
Final notes:
1 - I guess Murtha counts as a top Democrat (tops in running his mouth perhaps), but it’s important to note that the top 2 Democrats want nothing to do with this.
2 - The other “top” Democrat, Jim McGovern from Mass.. this has to be a joke name, right?
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
It was the Clinton administration which came up with much of what became the PATRIOT Act. His administration also came up with plans to take out Saddam. The D’s gladly voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq, has continued to fund the war and just in the past two weeks voted for a resolution naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Given the current laws and resolutions that practically gives the Executive branch a free pass to attack Iran whenever it feels like. The major Democrat presidential candidates won’t commit to removing the troops within even a 5 year time frame. They have no problem ‘keeping every option on the table’ with Iran. They want to continue the Wilsonian plan to make the world safe for democracy. Be the world policemen. Spread the American way. That is the neocon policy too.
This bill has no other purpose but to pass the buck to the people. How would this force the R’s hand? They are talking about raising taxes to pay for the war. That’s just asking for the R’s to say ‘we told you so.’
And it’s not like Pelosi really objects to the bill… she blasts Bush for not asking the public to make sacrifices (aka raise taxes) yet it’s Congress which levies taxes… not the President. She just doesn’t want the heat for initiating them.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:59 am
At some level I’ll agree with you with respect to the D’s and R’s. However, I think the side effects of their policies turn out similarly, rather than the original intent. If you equate the Wilsonian plan with the Project for the New American Century be my guest. Both have created similar results so I can understand your position.
We pay for this war either way, so hypothetically what’s wrong with itemizing it?
October 4th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Check out Neo-CONNED! and similar historical traces of the neo-con movement. The idea of spreading democracy and world government are shared views and have similar results. Some of the original pushers of those ideas are Wilsonians.
This isn’t an itemization… it’s a progressive surtax. A tax on your taxes. It was used during the Vietnam War.