Common sense: whether you were in favor or opposed to the Iraq War, it
defies belief that the Republicans were able to get away with cutting taxes
at a time when it was clear that the government needed additional revenues
to defend itself against terrorism. Who benefits the most from the
peace and security of the U.S.? The rich. So who pays the least
to defend the peace and security of the U.S.? Proportionately, the
rich.
By borrowing the money for his wars (and that is absolutely what he did),
and then cutting taxes to the rich, George Bush stunningly shifted the
burden of the cost of the wars to the middle-classes. The next step in
the process is for the Republicans to scream bloody murder about the awful
deficit they created and weep crocodile tears: "now we'll have to cut
Social Security and Medicare and other social programs! Alas!"
The Democrat's biggest blunder? By allowing themselves to be cornered
into supporting the war and terrified of being accused of raising taxes, the
Democrats consented to screwing themselves. They should have demanded
that Bush raise the revenue to pay for the war without borrowing! That
would have been a Rove-like tactic that might have brilliantly positioned
themselves as the more fiscally responsible party in 2010.
Instead, they are like the adults whose kids promised they would walk the
dog every day, if they would only, please, please, please, get a dog.
And now the Republicans sit on their fat asses watching "American Idol" on
TV, ignoring the dog.
And now, well, the dog
must be walked. And it's raining, and it's cold, and it's dark.
And the dog must be walked.
November 1, 2010
Cost of Iraq War
Cost per Family
And let us continue to be amazed at the success the Republican Party has had at
convincing many Americans to vote against their own interests. As the Tea
Party rabbles careen down the rubbled path of disaster begging, just begging the
government to stop taxing rich people, lower the minimum wage, emasculate health
and safety regulations, destroy social security and Medicare, and stop unions
from getting higher wages for their workers, which brings up wages for everyone.
But then these are people who, when asked, would you like to
Why oh why oh why did the Democrats not demand that the Republicans pay for
their wars out of current tax revenues?
Would Americans have voted for a war that was going to cost each of them,
man, woman, and child, $750 (over $2000 per household) so far? Or would
they have demanded better proof, at least, of the actual existence of weapons of
mass destruction?
The Republicans cut taxes while taking on the war and then borrowed to cover
the deficit. Why did the Democrats allow the Republicans to bill
the war to future generations? Did they not realize that once Bush had run
up the deficit, the Republicans, having whipped the nation into a patriotic
frenzy (with, among other things, those nauseating "God Bless America"
interludes at ball games), could now use the deficit as an excuse to slash
spending on programs that actually benefit most Americans?
Was this planned?
David Stockton appeared on "60 Minutes" last Sunday.
The former
Reagan budget director actually advocated higher taxes on the rich for the
simple common sense reason that the country's bills need to be paid.
One
could be forgiven with coming away with the impression that there is indeed
a class war going on in the U.S.: the rich are out to destroy the middle
class.
All Contents Copyright
© Bill Van Dyk
2010 All Rights Reserved
Font: Verdana