Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

The return of the McGovernite left (update)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, October 02, 2007

First we had Hillary's great idea to 'give' every baby born in America 5 grand.

Now we have this presented as a way to 'share the sacrifice' of the war (as if the money funding it now came from a completely different source that taxation):
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Defense subcommittee on House Appropriations, and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), will soon unveil a "surtax" on taxes owed by Americans to help cover the cost of the war, the trio announced this morning.

The tax is designed to raise $140 billion to $150 billion annually, and would range from a 2% surtax on low-income Americans to as much as 15% for wealthy taxpayers.
Of course the tax hasn't a chance in Hades of passing but it does bring back memories to those of us old enough to remember the anti-war machinations of another Congress of years ago:
McGovern also noted that such surtaxes had been enacted by the government before during previous conflicts.

"There is precedent for this," said McGovern. "We did this during Vietnam. We also did this during World War II as well."
Yeah, it may be a different McGovern but the thrust is the same.

So the old playbook is out and being consulted regularly now, eh?

The obvious point of the bill is to find a way to create some leverage for the anti-war cause and they feel that would be possible if they could hit people in the wallet.

Frankly, it isn't a bad idea, in terms of tactics. However it is still another in a long line of ploys designed to shield them from the political consequences of forcing a withdrawal. Instead of doing what they are empowered to do, defunding the war, they choose to resort to tricks and ploys. Murtha's "death by a thousand cuts" ploy still in play.

I think we all know why Democrats in Congress continue these useless attempts instead of standing up and doing what they say they believe in. It has to do with a lack of spinal columns in the face of the political consequences of actually acting on principle.

So, instead, the Congressional games continue.

UPDATE: Nancy says no. Apparently even she is getting tired of the games:
All told, the Democratic proposal for an “Iraq tax” lasted about four hours. That’s roughly the amount of time from when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) gave life to the idea with his endorsement to when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) strangled it.

“Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax,” Pelosi said in a statement issued this afternoon.
Huh ... I find myself agreeing on 2 out of 3. OK that scares me.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Or we can wage war and not pay for it, which the last Congress tried.
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://
I hope we also see Murtha endorse surcharges for Hillary’s pipe dreams....provided she wins.
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Or we can wage war and not pay for it, which the last Congress tried.
Why is it so important to pay for this war when there seems to be absolutely no desire by Democrats to pay for the fiscal trainwrecks known as Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid? Or the debt.

At least waging war has a Constitutional basis. And compared to SS and the rest, its cost is a drop in the bucket.
Written By: McQ
The "Return" when, after 1968 has it really left?
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
You all are being too short sighted, I think we ought to get behind the idea of a ’no spending without taxation’ approach to government spending.

Imagine if voters/taxpayers were given ala carte approval over Hillary’s $5,000 a baby plan, Congressional earmarks, the size of Congressional staffs and their junkets, spending on corrupt organizations such as the UN and the World Bank and so on.

And if the public refused to ’pay’ for the Iraq war, so be it, we don’t spend any more and our troops come home. Ignore the public, claiming that we elites know what is good for them, is something only liberals would do, right?
Written By: Steve Sturm
URL: http://
I’ll go one better. Stop withholding taxes from wages and make everyone write a check in April for the full amount. I’ve known more than a few people who look forward every year to getting their income tax refund. You ask them how much taxes they paid and they are clueless. They just know they get a refund every year and they are thankful the government gives it to them.
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Even better. Hold elections the day after taxes are due.
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I bet it took about 4 hours for the poll results to reach Pelosi. Tax increases, yes that’ll increase our majority....
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks