It's very simple. They expect both. And they will demand it loudly, with red faces and flying spittle, egged on by talk-show and talk-radio hosts. And earnest commentators will gravely consider whether the Obama administration finally has met its Waterloo over its inability to fiscally manage the War On Terror as smoothly as the Bush administration did.

"What we saw from George W. Bush and Republican lawmakers during his two terms was without precedent in American history"

All part of the kick the can down the road philosophy of these irresponsible, cynical men.

They should institute a tax on bank and financial company bonuses to pay for the war. The same people who got bailed out for taking too much risk and got the majority of the tax cuts over the last 8 years should pay for it now. An alternative would be to tax stock market trades over a certain level. Let the market manipulators pay their fair share too.

Buy War Bonds!

I have a better solution...get to hell out of Afghanistan or bring back the draft.

This is what Nancy Yousse had to say on Bill Moyers Journal:

NANCY YOUSSEF: What I think the distinction is Vietnam had an impact on the nation, because of the draft, because everybody could be touched by it in some way. Where as when I go to Iraq or Afghanistan, I come back, and I'm always struck by how little I feel the war not only in the United States, not only among my friends, but in Washington itself. You don't feel the war.

Unfortunately, as you note, this will probably not pass, meaning that a percentage of Democrats will vote against it. This will undermine the ability of Dems to further the arugument for fiscal responsibility. It seems like the best thing in this regard would be to let it pass the house, then let the Republithugs block with with another filibuster hissy fit in the Senate, but too many Dems have been seduced and co-opted by the no tax mantra for this to happen.

it is so unethical to spend billions of dollars on an unjust, unwinnable war without resorting to some tax mechanism that shows the unjust unwinnable war is being paid for -- at least on paper.

whatta country!

according to a ny times article even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the white house concludes that EACH soldier sent to afghanistan will cost about $1 million a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15cost.html

Regardless of what happens to Obey's bill, having the Republicans drink arsenic (literally, I'd be happy to convene a Death Palin for them to do so enmasse -politicians, media zombies, the lot of them -- then increase the Death Palin Tax on their estates to pay for the arsenic.

Saving the country from its internal enemies costs money.

You know, former generations helped pay for wars by lending the government money in the form of savings stamps, Liberty Loans (WW1), and war bonds (WW2). The loans were repaid later with modest interest (actually, 4% and up sounds pretty good these days).

And other means of fundraising have been used. WW1, for example, was financed in part by adding a penny for a stamp (First Class went from 2 cents to 3 during the war). The Korean War effort was funding in part by excise taxes on "luxury" goods, including jewelry.

The point is, if Americans believe we're fighting for a cause, they should be ready to help finance the effort, whether through one-size-fits-all income taxes or bond purchases or special taxes. Conversely, Americans who disagree should vote Republican and get tax breaks that will be the true cause of crippling debt for future generations.

How about we put some Washington bureaucrat between the Wars and their Pentagon?

On Tuesday next, when the President tells us how many extra troops he is sending, he should end with a call to the Loyal Opposition: "How should we pay for them?"

Fiscally responsible Republicans will come forth, no doubt, with a plethora of ideas. . .

dcsusie @ 11:25 am: "the Republithugs block with with another filibuster hissy fit in the Senate"

Remember, the Republithugs cannot filibuster ANYTHING without at least one Blue Dog on their side (I include Lieberman in that category for brevity).

It's also a test for the public...

Aren't they maxing out on their credit cards today?

George Bush's tax cutting proved for the second time in 20 years that cutting taxes doesn't stimulate enough economic activity to pay for conservatives' pet projects.

How often do Americans have to learn this lesson?

Obey's war tax is perfect. I would even suggest that it be used to pay for the last eight years of war as well.

I agree with K.

The nation paid for WWII by raising money through bond drives, etc., but the war costs were ultimately paid for by income taxes. The highest marginal rate was 90%, which persisted until JFK came into office. Rush Limbaugh likes to say that "even JFK cut taxes," but does not mention to the ditto-heads that he cut them from 90% down to somewhere in the 60% range. FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower (who would be unlikely to be considered at Republican today) did the responsible -- what the Goopers like to call "grown-up" -- thing. Bush II and the current GOP, not so much.

The Democrats should support Obey's proposal, to expose the GOP for what it is. We can borrow diminish our future prosperity to fund a war, but not health care. Now, that is Republicanism distilled to its finest.

One the more salient points of our current fiscal gestalt is the ability to deny reality. [Or more exactly, our ability to be conned]. Short term thinking, [profit], trumps long term investing. Why should I pay for something now, if I can get the unborn to grapple with that problem?

I've got mine...

I have a better solution...get to hell out of Afghanistan or bring back the draft.

Posted by: antiquelt at 11:24 AM

America's high handed belligerence and joie de guerre would come to a halt damn fast if the combo reality check of across the board military service was combined with having to pony up for the military/industrial welfare program known as everlasting war.

Those two things would definitely take a lot of the fun out of the jingoism and arrogant/relatively painless death and destruction bestowed on foreign lands by an out of control U.S. military and it's vendors.

Somehow, the whole country came to believe what GW Bush believed: that when the time came to pay, Daddy and his friends would take care of it.

"Nothing is more important in time of war than cutting taxes." Tom DeLay said that. Out loud. And still we pretend the GOP is a serious political party.

Go figure.

Slightly OT but commensurate with the fantasyland perspectives that get us into this crap over and over and then keep us there...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/25/bolton/index.html

John Bolton is the visible and repulsively fragrant result of a fear induced bowel movement.

it is worth noting that the last texan president who conducted a great folly of war-making at least put through a surtax to pay for it.

while the more recent texan president ran explicitly against paying for the war in 2004 (that being the whole point of "i was for it before i was against it").

i think this is a brilliant, brilliant move by obey, just astonishingly great. now let's hope it doesn't get undercut by too many blue dogs....

I expect that the odious Blue Dogs are not going to very happy about having to vote on this either.

it will be interesting to see those who rant daily about Obama's deficits explain why they oppose fiscal responsibility when it comes to supporting our troops.

No, it won't.

It won't be interesting at all. They'll simply say: if we weren't spending all this money on Obamacare, we could afford this war without raising taxes!! It will elude them entirely that spending money on blowing stuff up is not a better option than spending money to make sick people well.

I have a better solution...get to hell out of Afghanistan or bring back the draft.

Sure. Let's get several hundred or thousand more young men and women killed. That'll show those Republicans who's boss!

"get to hell out of Afghanistan or bring back the draft."

I strongly agree with the idea of a draft, for the reasons burro spells out above. There would be less war, less deaths, if John Q. Public faced even a slim possibility of sending John Jr. and Jane off to war. No deferments.

How do you arrive at "The two ongoing conflicts have cost, by some estimates, $1 trillion and counting"? You make it sound so VISA nonchalant.

Let's see now.

Already directly appropriated $915 billion. For 2010 budget an additional $130 billion requested.

As it runs on the national credit card, at a nominal 4% interest the $915 billion is $36.6 billion in interest this year with an accumulated bill of $90 billion plus before.

The Dept of Def outlays have gone from $290 billion in 2001 -- $354 billion in 2009 dollars -- to a prospective $515 billion for the same year and $533.7 requested for next year, 2010.

This does not include all those ancilliary costs hidden in the atomic energy defense or defense related or homeland security budgets. Nor the ongoing and accummulating costs of all the casualties, physical and mental. Nor the degradation of the effectiveness and quality of the forces in manpower and equipment. Nor the associated losses due to a higher and more volatile price for oil, etc. Nor the drag on the economy by directing much increased resources to unproductive national security costs. Etc., etc., etc.

And, of course, it does not include the costs to those of our allies who have contributed, nor the massive costs -- particularly in Iraq -- in life, limb, trauma, physical assets, and 3 million displaced.

With no end yet in sight in Afghanistan and withdrawal from Iraq possibly to be delayed, probably running, present net value, more like $3 trillion. But we probably don't want to assume responsibility for all those costs that accumulate the next 50 years for our actions today, do we?

Going to war. Easy.

The costs, inestimable.

How do you arrive at "The two ongoing conflicts have cost, by some estimates, $1 trillion and counting"? You make it sound so VISA nonchalant.

Let's see now.

Already directly appropriated $915 billion. For 2010 budget an additional $130 billion requested.

As it runs on the national credit card, at a nominal 4% interest the $915 billion is $36.6 billion in interest this year with an accumulated bill of $90 billion plus before.

The Dept of Def outlays have gone from $290 billion in 2001 -- $354 billion in 2009 dollars -- to a prospective $515 billion for the same year and $533.7 requested for next year, 2010.

This does not include all those ancilliary costs hidden in the atomic energy defense or defense related or homeland security budgets. Nor the ongoing and accummulating costs of all the casualties, physical and mental. Nor the degradation of the effectiveness and quality of the forces in manpower and equipment. Nor the associated losses due to a higher and more volatile price for oil, etc. Nor the drag on the economy by directing much increased resources to unproductive national security costs. Etc., etc., etc.

And, of course, it does not include the costs to those of our allies who have contributed, nor the massive costs -- particularly in Iraq -- in life, limb, trauma, physical assets, and 3 million displaced.

With no end yet in sight in Afghanistan and withdrawal from Iraq possibly to be delayed, probably running, present net value, more like $3 trillion. But we probably don't want to assume responsibility for all those costs that accumulate the next 50 years for our actions today, do we?

Going to war. Easy.

The costs, inestimable.

New rule: If John Jr. or Jane can qualify for any deferment, no public office at any level.

Perpetuawar.

How do you fund that?

And the best logic for why politicians like Bush and Obama don't want on budget, higher taxes wars is becasue they know that would not get the votes.

So they just bleep you and spend the money anyway.

I am surprised we haven't seen more widespread distribution of this:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091019/polk

Very insightful.

There was a proposal to fund the Iraq War costs with an explicit "Iraq War Tax" or a "War on Terror Tax" that you would see deducted on your paycheck along with federal/state/etc.

Whatever happened to that?