Afghanistan: A GOP twofer?
AFGHANISTAN: A GOP TWOFER? David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has introduced a war tax bill.
“As presidential historian Robert Dallek reminds us, ‘war kills off great reform movements’,” Obey said, noting that World War I ended the Progressive Era, Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal and Vietnam ended Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.
Now, I know that’s supposed to be an argument against sending more troops to Afghanistan, but if you’re a Republican, isn’t it a pretty good argument for supporting the surge?
Surely some nefarious Republican operatives thought of this while the party was planning its response to Obama’s speech at West Point. The GOP’s reputation as the party of ideas isn’t all that bright at the moment, but any good Democrat can tell you that the GOP is still the master of skullduggery.
Actually, I haven’t any Republicans make the Obey argument. Of course, I may not be plugged-in to the nefarious side of the party. All I hear is security this and terrorism that.
On a related note, Obey’s comment about war being the enemy of reform tells you something about his war tax. His primary concern isn’t paying for the war. It’s stopping the war so that his domestic agenda can move forward.
Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
14 Responses to “Afghanistan: A GOP twofer?”
You do nothing but mock Obey, when you could also support Nelson, who wants to bring back war bonds.
The question of how to pay for the war is serious.
Is snark all you've got?
It is ridiculous to try and and tie this into Republicans in any way, shape or form at this point in time.
Obey couldn't even get his own Dem House colleagues to support it in 2007 when they controlled the House and Bush was in the WH.
Make it a flat head tax and I will write my check. Issue tax exempt bonds and I will buy a boatload.
Sign me up. If a war is important enough (I think this one is) for our people to get killed and maimed, it is the least I can do. As I've stated previously, I would prefer that the troop's welfare (current/past/future) be first in line for the money.
Obey is pathetic. What he's doing is not of enough value to register as disgusting, or merely annoying. It's a pathetic joke.
(I wonder if Dems will eventually incorporate such a tax for another purpose, “paying for health care,” into the eventual health care “reform” legislation.)
Jaded opinion. Even if this is purely political, just the thought of sharing a little of the pain is ok with me. And no, of course, funds should not be diverted to other “causes”.
My opinion? Quite jaded, indeed. (It has been earned!) Sharing the pain actually doesn't bother me if it were a “sharing” that were properly designed and applied. For example, war we have fought in Iraq has been to defend and protect US interests, the primary interest of which is oil. (Israel is #2 and the public values it less than #1, substantially.) An honest, reasonable, honest (I repeat myself intentionally) tax on petroleum to defray the costs of defending it would be in order and I've posted this statement before.
I get your point, but I think it is a little too pointed. If we had a half-a-brain, we would be like the French and have many more Nuclear plants (cut out the red tape) and that would eliminate most of the oil need. And while I'm praising the French, we should have high speed railroads.
We are in the 20th century on a few things and Reps/Dems are responsible.
I don't know the answer to this, but you may. If we took the money we spent/spend on Iraq, how much oil could we buy. In other words, doesn't the war cost more then the amount of oil we could have bought?
(Excuse my insensitivity, the loss of life and the pain can not be calculated.)
“I get your point, but I think it is a little too pointed.”
I accept all the blame for that. Being pointed and possibly too pointed is a risk I've chosen to take. It's a forum where striking hard is appropriate, and many on here (especially with the health care “reform” effort) have asked to be struck very hard; if anything, I've still insisted on a light touch.
* * *
“If we had a half-a-brain, we would be like the French and have many more Nuclear plants (cut out the red tape) and that would eliminate most of the oil need.”
The construction (and decommissioning) costs are very high for nuclear power (not to mention the political nonsense that should be eliminated, or harshly reformed, at least), but don't forget transportation (in addition to space heating when the weather is cold) when oil and gas are at issue.
“And while I'm praising the French, we should have high speed railroads.”
I love high-speed trains. The problem in the USA (and actually, as with other transportation issues and energy use, it actually can be worse in Canada) the population density is too low and more importantly, distances too great to convert all long-distance travel from air and auto largely to rail. High-speed rail in the USA (and Canada) is largely regional (or intra-state in the case of giant spots like in California, Texas, and Florida) with big populations and viably short distances. The Northeast Corridor, probably everyone knows about already; California's idea makes sense to many. (True for the core Texas “triangle” area and with Florida, too.) The future for high-speed rail is regional. (Though I have been enamored as well of subsidized “loss-leader” connectors between regional systems that would entice more people to use all rail as a whole — and give us fans a way to get by rail on multiple systems, ideally coast to coast in one
very long day.)
That makes me once more think aloud that it might have been intriguing for the stimulus effort this year to include study and acceleration on the major challenge and related strategic-level decisions to be made about this:
* * *
“If we took the money we spent/spend on Iraq, how much oil could we buy. In other words, doesn't the war cost more then the amount of oil we could have bought?”
I believe it does cost more. Now, that doesn't mean we should descend to an ugly level where all we care about is the money. But certainly it merits consideration, as a real-world reality check. After all, in the first Gulf war (~1990), in LA at the time, I remember people saying it would have been easier just to have assassinated Hussein — and that we should, not shouldn't, be willing to do this more often.
Where this leads is to something related that I thought of, in hindsight a long time ago: Wouldn't it have been much easier as well as much cheaper, and avoided all the consequences and costs of all kinds of war, just to have paid Hussein to end his rule and leave Iraq?
I guess we as a people are either too naive/principled/fair, or whatever, to be more pragmatic in many of the areas you discussed, above.
“too naive/principled/fair, or whatever, to be more pragmatic”
That's because we still value the former somewhat, even nowadays. Many of us are pragmatic and realistic, but there are limits to what we can or should do. (The pragmatism or realism interferes with our ability to be more principled, such as to intervene in Darfur.)
Darfur: I wonder why O hasn't made a speech on that yet. Is he getting pragmatic (a little)?
“Pragmatic” and “realistic” are Fightin' Words to liberals right now! On Afghanistan, on health care “reform”: just listen to what farther lefties have to say on talk radio these days. (Actually, it's one of the more interesting perspectives from which to hear criticism these days. I wish I weren't too busy to be able to listen more right now.)
“Pragmatic” and “realistic” are synonyms for “compromise” of the kind liberals are angry about currently.
“Darfur: I wonder why O hasn't made a speech on that yet.”
He's not in over his head, but certainly he's in deep. And the Congre-Dems are in things even deeper. (They overreached this year to the point of failure and now, reclamation with health care “reform.”) Times are tough and the stimulus hasn't worked (if anything, resulted in earlier trouble for the Dems). Times are still tough. Even without the e-mail scandal, the “global warming” stuff was stalled, not only from lib Dem overreach in the House but because everyone who's realistic doesn't want to undertake a huge amount of silly political agenda items that will hamper business and raise the cost of living. Even before the e-mail scandal there were less than silly-high expectations about Copenhagen.
With setbacks like this, perhaps it is not surprising that Darfur and other emotive or “principled” (human rights, etc.) things (Burma, Kyi? Tibet?) have been neglected.
“Darfur: I wonder why O hasn't made a speech on that yet. Is he getting pragmatic (a little)?”
Here's a gem. In fact, Hillary Clinton could have been speaking for the entire administration, on domestic as well as on foreign affairs these days, if one thinks about it. (The lib Dems in Congress deserve no similar attention.) Sometimes they have to settle for less than the excess they want, and the following is as good a way of admitting this and sweetening it as could be stated. Learning from mistakes this year? Soothing raw nerves about health care “reform,” too?
“In every instance, our aim will be to make a difference, not to prove a point. … We all know examples of good intentions that did not produce results. And we can learn from instances in which we have fallen short. Past failures are proof of how difficult progress is, but we do not accept claims that progress is impossible.”
(Pragmatism: Getting wary after being burned by overreach failures. Purpose: Political and reputation recovery; also pre-empting future over-expectations and sweetening future pain for unrealistic “progressives.” Though out of context involving her, could apply to health care and subsequent efforts, at least before 2010 elections, as well as to longer-term things like relations with China.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/14/blogs/c…