[Peace-discuss] ron paul, teabaggers, and some of their best friends

[C. G. Estabrook]

Obey has just announced that he won't run for re-election.  He's been in
Congress for 40 years, but like other Obama (i.e., pro-war) Democrats, he's 
facing the prospect of being beaten this year.

In this case, the cliche is correct: the rats are leaving the sinking ship.


On 5/4/10 6:33 PM, Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 02:54:29PM -0700, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>> The only way to get ANY folks out of the woodwork to protest the US's
>> imperialist wars is to reinstate the draft. How 'bout we [peace activists]
>> start a rumor that that's in the works and see what happens? Add that to
>> blogs and picket signs, get talk radio hosts ranting about it. Worth a try
>> :-)
>
> Actually, we have a much better option at hand: a war *tax*, as an addition
> to the income tax.
>
> It could be (relatively) progressive, making people with higher incomes pay
> more, unlike a draft which disproportionately burdens people who can't buy
> themselves out of it by going to school, etc.; affects everybody, not just
> young people or families with young people (lots more families these days
> would have no one of likely draft age); and, it could expose directly the
> monetary cost of a war, instead of just adding more-or-less-silently to the
> debt. And as a fiscally responsible measure it's hard for the Right to
> dismiss.
>
> It's been recently proposed in Congress at least twice, in 2007 and 2009,
> both by David Obey and others... Here's the 2009 one:
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4130.IH:
>
> H. R. 4130
>
> To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a temporary surtax to
> offset the costs of the Afghanistan war.
>
> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES November 19, 2009
>
> Mr. OBEY (for himself, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. ESHOO, Mr.
> FARR, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT,
> Mr. MCGOVERN, and Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California) introduced the
> following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means [...]
>
> Starts at 1%, increases to 2% over $36K or something.
>
> I don't think it went far politically either time.  But if we can talk about
> balanced-budget requirements, as deficit hawks want to do, then how can we
> not talk about taxing to support wars too?
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.