Upper-Bracket Tax May Be Needed for Afghan War Cost, Levin Says

I think we should spread the tax out through the political class ONLY.

Put them in a bind even the worst of them couldn't talk their way out of.

Do it with health care as well.

Being as they don't mind going after the well off, perhaps they need a dose of the same.

Rep. Obey warns of 'war surtax' if Obama sends troops to Afghanistan
A smokescreen to hide a desire by Democrats to withdraw from Afghanistan. More

The Democrats' War Tax

Justin Raimondo on tax-and-kill liberals

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 – Review & Outlook, Wall Street Journal

Will Biden And Kerry Support A War Surtax Again?
By The Huffington Post News Team , Huffington Post.

House Democrats Eye War Tax

'Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010' would tax for Afghan war

House Democrats Eye War Tax

Pelosi: Democrats Facing Voter 'Unrest' Over War Spending, Troop Increase

Paying for war: How to escalate in Afghanistan without adding to the national debt – Editorial, Washington Post:

Congress could adopt the measure it took in 1940 to help pay for World War II, and again in 1951, when money was needed for the Korean War: an increase in the gasoline tax. Image from

What should we anticipate and how should we think about the costs of the surge?

First, $30 billion is the “figure du jour,” but it is not likely to be the right number.  CRS estimates would lead to the conclusion that about $1 billion per thousand troops is a good ballpark if you are using your own personal envelope.  However, two other elements are likely to enter in: accelerated deployment, and non-military costs. 

The President has decided to deploy quickly, which means much of the troops and equipment will be airlifted to Afghanistan.  Airlift is substantially more expensive than sealift, which could raise the costs to deploy.

And there has been no discussion of associated security assistance and civilian assistance programs.  While the FY2010 budget did include funding for both (more than $8 billion in DOD security and foreign assistance; $2.8 billion in State/USAID economic assistance) the commitment the President made for civilian assistance is likely to go beyond that budget request, and will add to the FY 2010 bill.

Second, will the administration offset those costs, so we don’t have to borrow more to pay for them?  Simple answer: No.  This is going to be an FY 2010 budget supplemental, coming to Congress sometime next year, when the fiscal year is roughly half gone.  No way is DOD or State going to find offsets in existing, appropriated funds it can cut to support such a large bill.  And no way is DOD going to reprogram funding to this purpose; they are limited by a reprogramming ceiling well under $5 billion a year.

What will Congress do with it?  Short answer: pass a DOD Supplemental Request. 

While many members will want to debate the policy in the framework of the funding, if history is any guide, very few will want to leave themselves vulnerable to the charge that they did not support forward deployed forces, especially in an election year.

Don’t get me wrong.  There will be a debate and lots of “virtual ink” spilled over such issues as a tax on the wealthy, excessive spending, the deficit, the urgency of job creation, fiscal recovery, and the health bill. 

But in the end, the funds will be provided.  Either the administration will get enough Republican support to pass it with reduced Democratic support, or enough side deals will be cut with Democrats to obtain that support.  But it will pass.

In and out with Groucho - Harold Meyerson, Washington Post:

Like imperial Rome and Churchillian Britain, the United States can no longer afford to fight the wars it once took on with reckless abandon, even when it concludes it can’t quite abandon the battlefield, either. Image from

Afghanistan Costs: by the Numbers

Pelosi opposes war surtax

Democratic Rep. David Obey is getting lots of attention in Washington for proposing a 1 percent surtax to pay for the war in Afghanistan.

Obey, of Wisconsin, argues that the United States must start paying for its military efforts instead of pushing them into the future. But his idea lacks support from a key person: his boss, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

“With the highest regard for Mr. Obey, that is his idea,” Pelosi told reporters on Thursday. “He is speaking for himself and the considerable reputation he enjoys in the Congress.”

So how would Pelosi pay for the war?

“When the president makes a request, we will make a judgment about what support it has, and some of that will relate to how it affects the deficit,” she said.

The Spending Wars
Paul Waldman

Wars cost money. So why do we fight them like they're free?

We've become used to this contradiction in Washington. Wars just need to be fought; the defense budget just needs to keep growing; and we don't really care what it costs. The idea that we might ask each other to pay for war through our taxes is so ridiculous as to barely merit discussion. Domestic initiatives meant to improve Americans' lives, on the other hand, are deeply offensive to any notion of responsibility unless every penny is paid for in advance (and maybe not even then).

It wasn't always this way.