|
House Appropriations Chairman to Introduce War Tax Bill to Pay for Iraq
WASHINGTON — A top Democratic congressman, saying Democrats "have had it with being maneuvered and jerked around" on the war in Iraq, offered a new approach Tuesday to change the course of funding for the ongoing war: A war tax.
Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he will not allow a bill to come for debate to provide emergency supplemental funds for the war and suggested Americans should be compelled to pay for it through a "surtax."
"The president isn't going to get a supplemental this year. I am not going to report a supplemental out" if it simply is a request for funds and not a change in direction for troops in Iraq," Obey said.
Obey suggested he is flexible as to what the change in policy proposes "so long as it represents real change and not camouflage."
Obey said the annual cost for the war — $145 billion — could be paid by a tax that would range from 2 percent for low and middle income folks to 12-15 percent for higher income households.
"This war is draining the treasury dry. ... There is a huge opportunity cost that is being paid by the same younger generation that is going to be asked to pay the bill because the president is paying for this war on the cuff," Obey said. "If you don't like the cost, then shut down the war."
Obey said he has no expectation that the majority leadership in the House would embrace a tax, but wants to try to force the president's hand for this "misbegotten" war. He said that the tax would address the cost of the Iraq war, which he described as "not an intelligent use of resources," and is not related to operations in Afghanistan.
A senior Senate Democratic leadership aide told FOX News that both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are considering their next moves on Iraq, especially as it relates to the emergency war spending bill
Obey's proposal received the expected response from Republicans, with one senior Senate GOP aide whose boss deals directly with tax policy ridiculing the surtax.
"What next? A tax on air?" the aide told FOX News. "Democrats are talking about the need to raise taxes to pay for the war while they're also trying to bully the Republicans and the president into $23 billion more in (2008 fiscal year) domestic spending — $23 billion that will balloon into $250 billion over 10 years. The problem isn't too few taxpayer dollars, its too much government spending."
Obey's remarks preceded debate on legislation that would require Bush to submit a plan for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The bill would require the administration to report to Congress on the status of redeployment plans in 60 days. Follow up reports would be required every 90 days thereafter.
Initially, Democratic leaders considered the bill too mild and instead focused on tougher measures that ordered troops home this fall. But those measures didn't pick up enough Republican support.
The latest bill doesn't set any timetable for a withdrawal and Republican leaders have said they will not oppose it.
Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vote was 92-3.
The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.
Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding. But Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the defense subcommittee of the Senate appropriations panel, announced Tuesday that he will oppose any amendment to defense spending that "could jeopardize quick enactment of this bill."
Inouye is in charge of shepherding the bill to passage, and is sending a clear warning to Democrats like Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who want to dry up funding to force limiting the mission in Iraq. Feingold released a statement late Monday announcing his intention to offer an amendment to the defense spending bill that would do just that. Feingold said Iraq is the most important issue facing the U.S. and the Senate must address it without half-measures or compromises that do nothing to end the the Iraq war.
While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.
"I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.
The House bill, sponsored by Democrats John Tanner of Tennessee and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, was initially cast aside as too mild by Democratic leaders focused on tougher proposals ordering troops home this fall.
But after Democrats were unable to peel off Republican support, the Iraq debate stalled and some four dozen rank-and-file Democrats demanded a vote on the Abercrombie-Tanner bill.
"This will be the first time since the war in Iraq began that we are working together as a Congress instead of one party or another to be a constructive voice in the civilian management of operations in Iraq," Tanner said in a statement e-mailed to the Associated Press.
In February, Bush requested more than $140 billion for the war, and is expected to ask for another $42 billion to cover costs in the 2008 budget year, which began Monday. The Senate's defense policy bill authorizes Bush's initial request, plus an additional $23 billion for the purchase of bomb-resistant vehicles.
In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.
The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill in May by a 397-27 vote. That $646 billion measure would trim hundreds of millions of dollars from some weapons modernization programs and use the money instead to aid troops in combat.
The House bill has drawn a veto threat from the White House because of provisions insisting the military rely heavily on American-made products and proposed changes to the Pentagon's personnel policies. The Senate version, which would have to be reconciled with the House bill, also faces a veto possibility because it includes hate-crimes legislation by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
College tuition should be free, so should healthcare. |
|
And how dare you call it my war? 
