Obey's Gambit - Raise Taxes To Pay For Afghanistan War

Greeting gentle readers,

Only a guy who feels so secure in his seat in Congress could propose the things Dave Obey proposes. I mean - this is a guy who pitches his own record albums on a campaign website:


Far Left: Dave Obey

1st he passed that $787 billion blunder we now jokingly call the 'Stimulus Package', now while we are in the height of a recession, he decides we need to raise taxes to pay for the war in Afghanistan. There are several good reasons to do this (from his point of view):

1) It silences critics on the right, after all, supporting the troops is patriotic right? Who would not support that?

2) He already passed a $787 billion stimulus bill, voted for national healthcare (TRILLION$) and all that spending is supposed to be "deficit neutral" right? So this is a tax to make sure we don't create a deficit by spending extra on national defense.

Here is the quote that tells it all:

"On the merits I think it's a mistake to deepen our involvement. But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to rebuild our economy," he said. "Ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan."

Taken from:
Lawmakers Propose 'War Surtax' to Pay for Troop Increase in Afghanistan and
Pressure Builds Over Obama’s Afghanistan Plan

But don't take my word for it what Congressman Obey's cheif concerns are, read his own words:

"We have spent the last year in Congress debating how we will pay for health care reform, which is expected to cost nearly a trillion dollars over the next ten years. The Congressional Budget Office is earnestly measuring the cost of each competing health care plan, and has had most of Congress twisting themselves into knots in order to keep the health care bill deficit neutral. Shouldn’t it be asked to do the same thing with respect to money spent on the current wars? We have already spent nearly a trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - an effort that’s been paid for with borrowed money - and another ten years would cost about a trillion more. If we keep that up, it will devour our nation’s ability to address virtually any other priority." - emphasis mine

Are we talking about the war on terror or healthcare? It's hard to tell going by Dave Obey's favorite newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle:

"He said the ten-year cost of the war clocks in at $900 billion, about the size of the Democratic health care legislation."

He said?

And that 1st quote came from the 'Health Care Arena' section of Politico. So the image I'm getting is that National Defense (a priority outlined in our Constitution) takes a backseat to healthcare (something not addressed in our Constitution). I got a news flash for congressman Obey - If the Nation is not safe, what we pay the doctor, dentist or our insurance companies won't matter!

That is a 1st principle that goes all the way back to Hobbes, the 1st priority of a nation is the security of it's citizenry. A secure citizenry can enjoy Freedom, a people living in the condition of strife can't.

To put words in Dave Obey's mouth, "If we blow money on a silly war, there will be no money for our newly created and very expensive social programs, especially MY stimulus bill!"

Oh come on now congressman, you are more creative than that, you'll get the money from somewhere right?

Now that's the creativity that made the Democratic party great!

More articles about Dave's Public Policy Blunder:

CBS
David Obey Calls for War Tax on Wealthy

Reuters
The Afghanistan war surtax gambit

Wall Street Journal
Obey's Afghan War Surtax
The real liberal objection to the war on terror is that it takes away from domestic spending priorities like ObamaCare.

TIME Magazine
Obey's War Tax

The Washington Independent
Obey Wants a Deficit-Neutral Afghanistan War

WSJ - The Wealth Report
More Afghanistan Troops: Send the Bill to the Wealthy?

Here's one of my personal faves from Cody Willard at Marketwatch, just in case you think my intimation about congressman Obey's priorities are wrong:

"At any rate, let’s keep the record straight about Representative Obey’s voting on spending priorities, shall we?
David Obey on Budget & Economy

Democratic Representative (WI-7):

Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending.

Voted YES on $800 Billion TARP Bailout

Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures.

Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package.

Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler.

Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy."

Full blog here.

And my true favorite for the day from the Los Angleles Times which basically shows that congressman Obey is an aging hippie, molded by the Viet Nam era politics:

"David Obey came to Congress in 1969, a young Democratic congressman from Wisconsin, opposed to the Vietnam War and mindful of the funding it was draining from Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs.

Thirty years later, he is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and adamant that Afghanistan is a similar quagmire that could bankrupt President Obama's domestic agenda."

It's not about fiscal responsibility, it's all about finding cover for Dave Obey's fiscal irresponsibility.

TTFN,

Jim