David Obey’s war surtax: Is your life worth more than your neighbor’s?

by Rossputin | 5:40 am, December 2, 2009 | Comments Off

Congressman David Obey (D-MI), who holds the extremely powerful position of Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is proposing an income surtax to fund any additional troops sent to Afghanistan.

It’s not a new idea for Obey, who suggested roughly the same plan in 2007.  This time, Obey is arguing for a graduated surtax, ranging from 1% for lower earners to 5% for those with high incomes.

The first thing to say about Obey’s idea is that nobody should think it’s because he wants to fund a war.  Rather, he knows that our current skyrocketing deficits are a political disaster-in-waiting for the Democrats.  Given his position and seniority, he has more than most to lose if the GOP were to reclaim the majority in the House.  So, Obey wants to raise taxes so that he doesn’t have to cut back government spending in other areas in order to try to even slightly stem the tide of red ink coming from this Congress and President (not that the last Congress and President were anything to applaud.)

What has always struck me most, however, about these proposals is the “progressive” (i.e. soak the rich) structure they’re proposed with.  Even a flat surtax would cause high earners to pay more in tax than lower earners.  But is there really more benefit to high earners than to other Americans from having strong national security?

I’m not looking for a debate here on whether the war in Afghanistan contributes to our national security.  Some strongly believe it does, and others disagree. To be frank, I haven’t figured it out yet though at this time I’m most sympathetic to those who say Afghanistan has proven through history that it cannot be tamed.  But if our commander-in-chief, even if he is a dilletante like Barack Obama, makes a strong case that this is a “necessary war”, I am hard-pressed to see how it’s more necessary for a rich American than a poor American.

If the necessary war reduces the chance of a terrorist bomb going off in America or among Americans overseas, how is that of proportionately greater benefit to a millionaire than a factory worker?  If a bomb were to go off, would the bomb know to aim for the rich guy?

I understand that within any group of people there are many different views on the value of life, including of a person’s own life. But on average, across a large society, would you not expect that factory workers value their own lives (and by value I don’t mean in a financial sense) about the same way that the rich members of an exclusive country club do?  Again, leaving aside a few outliers with unusual views about the value or importance of life, would not most people agree that their lives are the most important thing they have?

So, does Obey’s proposal not suggest the extremely undemocratic and unDemocratic idea that rich people’s lives are worth more?  I understand Obey might not see it this way…maybe he just wants to go where the money is.  But when you’re talking about a war against the people who facilitated the 9/11 attacks, this isn’t just about soaking the rich to fund entitlements.  National security brings the same benefit to rich and poor alike, namely the protection of their lives.

Before I make my suggestion based on the above thoughts, let me make one thing clear: I do not support a war surtax. The government takes enough of our money. Any surtax is simply a way to let Congress avoid even having to think about fiscal discipline. And, future presidents will simply claim we’re always at war with someone since the War on Terror has no borders, no definable enemy, etc., and the tax will be with us forever.  So the following suggestion is in the vein of “If we knew for sure there would be a war surtax, here’s what it should be.”

If we were to have a war surtax, it should absolutely not be with a graduated “progressive” tax rate.  Indeed, even a flat tax rate is probably unjust, as even that implies that a rich person’s life is worth more than a poor person’s.  Instead, each American citizen and resident should be assessed some flat fee, the same fee for everyone.  When the Democrats squawk, simply ask them whether they mean that a rich person’s life is really worth more than someone else’s.

Comments

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

• "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts

• Rising Oil Production in Alberta: More Evidence Disproving Hubbert’s Peak

  In today’s environment it’s hard to find good news. But this is good news: the free market is working, and putting statists’ predictions, like Hubbert’s, to shame. Oh, the joy!

• Regulatory Agencies Continue to Slow the Economy
• Printing Money Doesn’t Work in Britain Either
• Oklahoma’s Constitutional Amendment Would Pit Taxpayers Against Unions
• Friday’s Unemployment Numbers: Correcting the Corrections
• Romney Woos Grand Junction, Earns Sen. King’s Endorsement
• The Borking of Netflix: movie service finds privacy law to be an inconvenience