H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°
Nine hundred and twenty-two American soldiers dead. Two thousand six-hundred and eighty-eight American soldiers wounded. Tens of thousands of innocent Afghani civilians killed, wounded and maimed, and thousands more displaced from their homes, living as refugees in a constant warzone. About $250 billion spent in Washington on the war in Afghanistan. About $165 million spent on the war per day. The numbers are astronomical.
So why the hell are we still fighting this war? When will it ever end? Who are we even fighting against? What’s the purpose of all this nonsense and what’s this disastrous mission’s long-term aim? No legitimate answers exist for these questions.
Only the famous George Orwell could answer this question honestly: “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. … Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside … this is called ‘pacification.’ … Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable” (“On Politics and the English Language,” 1946).
Enter Operation Enduring Freedom, the Orwellian namesake for an excuse to begin an imperialistic, nation-building, post-9/11 voyage to Afghanistan. We, college students and American citizens at large, have been duped and continue to be duped by doublespeak from the Obama administration regarding the war in Afghanistan’s importance to our country’s future and the “global fight against terrorism.” We are somehow stuck fighting a war against a nationless state in the name of fighting against a global terrorist cell — al-Qaeda — that knows no boundaries. Orwell is rolling in his grave.
Victory can never be gained in this convoluted battle against a nebulous enemy. Yet here we are, mere hours before Mr. Nobel Prize Winner 2009 announces a 30,000-plus troop build-up at West Point. Oh, and how is this all going to be paid for if this nightmare comes to fruition? This is where things get interesting.
An honorable few in our big-money-influenced infested whorehouse known as the United States Congress have stepped up to the plate in opposition to perpetual war and perpetual war financing. The most notable recent opponent: U.S. Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.).
On Nov. 20, Obey proposed the “Share the Sacrifice Act,” which rightfully calls for an end to borrowing against the bloated deficit to pay for the war in Afghanistan. The Act instead proposes taxpayers collectively cover the war’s steep, seemingly endless costs.
It’s a whole hell of lot easier for citizens to wave the yellow “Support Our Troops” ribbon when Congress funds the war with fiat money, or money backed by nothing and created out of thin air that deflates the value of our dollar and puts the responsibility of paying for the war on future generations. It becomes much more difficult for those same war cheerleaders to support the war when they know war funding will be taken out of their own paychecks. It then transforms into a personal issue.
Obey’s proposition is commendable in that it recognizes and seizes on the selfish motives of the average American taxpayer. Few people, particularly those right-leaning “fiscal conservatives” who simultaneously tend to support the expensive misadventure in Afghanistan and yet want their money seized through taxation, regardless of governmental rationale.
The genius lays in the logic of Obey’s act. If Americans truly support the war, they would be willing to pay for it by siphoning away their hard-earned tax dollars. If opposed to doing so, Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, refuses to continue funding the war with fiat money. With the future of the war hanging in the balance, Obey has given the Obama administration a necessary ultimatum: he refuses to fund a troop build-up if Americans don’t support it enough to pay for it out of their own pockets.
U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) accurately stated on July 24 in an interview with The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill that the Obama administration was “whistling past a graveyard” on the issue of mindlessly sending thousands more troops to Afghanistan (“White House is Whistling Past Afghan Graveyard”). Rather than allow the Obama administration to continue their tune as thousands more die and the deficit continues to skyrocket, Obey has taken things into his own hands through the power of the purse, whistling in the face of his fellow Democratic war-mongering president.
One thing’s for certain: Left in Obama’s hands, this war has no end in sight and all signs point to Afghanistan being, as The New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins coins it, “The Forever War.” Obey has proposed a well-crafted solution to end the nightmare sooner rather than later.
Here’s hoping the House obeys Obey, co-sponsors the bill and eventually passes it. Our country’s economic and moral fiber hinges on it, as does the war’s future.
Steve Horn ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and legal studies.
IP hash: db6cdaa4
The tax doesn’t share the sacrifice among anyone making less than $150,000 per year. If Rep. Obey really wants to share the sacrifice, he would raise the income tax in all brackets and not just the top few percent.
This is nothing more than a naked money grab couched in “share the sacrifice” language.
IP hash: 3dc56800
There is only one way to stop the war: a federal tax revolt. Everybody pay your federal taxes to your state. If you live in Wisconsin, pay it to Wisconsin. If you live in Michigan, pay it to Michigan. Corporate taxes, personal income taxes, the whole nine yards, pay it to your state. Not only will it bring the war to a grinding halt, it will solve a lot of other problems, like lifting an oppressive federal tax burden, which in turn will stem the loss of jobs due to high taxes.
Come on, folks, this is no time for partisan politics. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor, liberal or conservative, we sink or swim together. Liberals had their chance to stop Bush’s oil war in 2004 when they flirted with the idea of blue state secession. Then they wussed out and now we have a president who stabbed liberals in the back too, but they won’t admit it.
The bailout that Obama and McCain both voted for in October 2008 was nothing more than an 11th hour money grab, Bush’s last favor for his friends in the private sector. The economic stimulus is not working and will only saddle us with the largest debt we’ve ever been forced to pay off. So what happens next? What can we do, collectively, to turn all this around and take back our government and our country?
IP hash: 75028d4f
you always find a way to suggest a federal tax revolt.
IP hash: 19784705
Hmmmm…. a junior political “science” and “legal studies” major, lecturing the rest of us on “our country�s economic and moral fiber!”. We are presented with an irrational rant from someone of no experience, other than voting for a hopey, changey political agenda that is veering from his personal predilections. Steve poses questions…. and then tells us there are no legitimate answers existing for them! Golly, Steve, your wisdom and insight are breathtaking. You are nearly as qualified as Our Dear Leader now.
Candidate Obama told his adoring minions that Afghanistan was the Necessary War. If you voted for him, you voted for continuing and succeeding in the Afghanistan War. Get over it. Stop your buyers remorse whining now.
If you really want to stop the bankrupting of America, urge your legislators to emphatically vote NO on any of the Climate Change or Health Care legislation being brought before the US House and Senate. All of the current proposals represent inefficient and unaffordable products and services, delivered by blakanized bureaucrats that consume resources without producing anything of intrinsic value.
IP hash: 1fd9984b
Funny that you say that, 2:58. I actually voted for Ralph Nader, so I don’t have buyer’s remorse. I only regret that people weren’t smart enough to listen when he said this was the Necessary War. Trust me, I never drank the Kool-Aid. I heard his plan for the war and ran away from him. His platform for “hope” and “change” was the most beautiful, deceptive rhetoric I’ve ever heard a man utter. Not really sure why you assumed I voted for Obama…
And I said Obama has offered no legitimate answers to those questions, because there are none. If you have legitimate answers, please offer them.
Lastly, we SHOULD be spending money on those two initiatives, and stop spending money on a war that could have funded health care for all. We are spending money to kill people in Afghanistan, which in turn, is also killing people here that don’t have health care coverage. All the while, our ecosystem is rotting away into oblivion. By the time the Health Care and Climate Change Bills reach the floor of Congress, they will probably be so politicized and muddled that they won’t be worth supporting and paying for; I’ll give you that. The political process is a joke and average Americans are the ones that will take a beating for it.
IP hash: 19784705
The Constitution requires funding national defense as the primary function of government. Not socialist handouts for all, in any form. Clearly your “legal studies” are falling short, Steve.
I don’t think the Wisconsin taxpayers should be subsidizing Steve Horns valueless “education” in political “science” and “legal studies”. I don’t think we should be subsidizing Health Care Fraud, Global Warming Fraud, and Home Mortgage Fraud either.
Let’s all tax revolt Steve Horn, valueless forms of education, and socialist degradation of the human spirit!
Hope…. Change….
IP hash: cae9cf79
Given Obey’s logic, if I support the war, I should pay for it, but what if I don’t support the health care bill after it gets passed? Or what if I don’t agree with climate change? Do I have to still pay for that? You betcha. We can thank Obey for the stimulus, which has cost us and has thus far failed, (oh yea, contributing to the deficit as well). The only true answer here is to see that he doesn’t get re-elected.
IP hash: f3d73eb0
The global jihadists’ war on America and our allies will not end simply because Leftist appeasers demand that we stop fighting back. To question whether America should continue to fight back and defeat this existential threat is absurdity on stilts. We have no other choice.
But lamenting the cost of our defense is particularly silly.
The United States was founded on the basis of individual liberty. As a result, the Constitution assigns to the federal government the primary responsibility to “provide for the common defence.” It is entirely reasonable to expend 4 percent of national income in the defense of freedom. Never�theless, the federal government is now allocating a smaller share of national income to defense than the average for the past four decades, despite the ongo�ing war against terrorism.
Projected growth in entitlement spending, not defense spending at this level, is at the core of the looming fiscal crisis facing the federal government. Defense expenditures at this level will jeopardize neither the health of the economy nor the prosper�ity of the American people— but a sustained commit�ment to defense is necessary to sustain liberty. Paying 4 percent for freedom is worth the price. Indeed, it is a bargain.
IP hash: f3d73eb0
The deficit will continue to skyrocket whether we spend 4% or 5% of GDP on national defense. With 10.2% unemployment and rising, Leftists need to take ownership for the return of Carter’s “misery index”— courtesy of the Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate.
The POR economy kicked in during the latter part of June 2007, when its architects — Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid — decided that starving the economy of energy by refusing to allow more offshore drilling in the face of $4 gas prices was a winning political position. Pelosi claimed that because we couldn’t totally “drill our way out of this,” we shouldn’t increase drilling at all. Reid put an exclamation point on Pelosi’s stubbornness by insisting that fossil fuels are “making us sick.”
This turndown has been much more severe than it should have been because of a serious breakdown in “the rules of the game.” Why invest in, start up, or expand any kind of business if there’s a realistic possibility that the government will aid your direct or indirect competitors, or otherwise radically and whimsically alter the playing field? This uncertainty has also taken its toll on consumers. Despite having billions of extra dollars available thanks to energy price drops and lower interest rates, their spending appears not to be ramping up proportionally.
The solution from the POR triumverate? More bailouts, leading to more uncertainty across the board. Another bigger “stimulus” and a less effective one at that. While tax “rebate” checks such as those sent out last year are not as effective as across-the-board rate cuts, at least they put money into consumers’ pockets quickly. But the new “stimulus” package evolving in Washington is dominated by public “investments” that, even if justified, would take much longer to make their way into the economy.
Roosevelt tried massive public works programs during the Depression. All he did is prolong it for seven years. Japan tried government stimulus for 10 years running in the 1990s. It only resulted in “the lost decade.”
What the POR triumverate should do is expand the tax cut element of the stimulus plan to include all incomes, ditch almost all of the alleged “investments,” open up oil and gas exploration, and, eventually, watch the royalty money pour in. I know; that’s way too much to “hope” for.
IP hash: 08131270
10:AM, do you have a better idea than what 8:11AM suggested? How else are we going to stop the war? How else are we going to get our government to concentrate on more important issues here at home? Do YOU have any better suggestions? Or are you just one of these little shits who likes to mouth off while other people are at least coming up with ideas. Unless and until you have an idea worth considering, STFU!!!!
IP hash: 75028d4f
well, like I always think when that same guy finds a new way to mold his sweet little “federal tax revolt” to whatever topic being discussed (and there have been many), I always think, “okay buddy, you first”….so maybe you can join 8:11 AM, and maybe some other people, and pay all of your federal taxes to the state. then when the war ends as a result of that, I will be the first to give you credit. Just make sure to post here around April 15th and the the ensuing months, to confirm that you did in fact pay your federal taxes to the state, and be sure to keep us all posted on how that works out for you.
IP hash: 9d15d005
[idiotarian spat: “How else are we going to stop the war?”]
Umm, perhaps the traditional way— WINNING! Alternatively, if you’re completely void of any basic sense of self-preservation, then move to Londonistan and enjoy the thousands of nightly street car-beques and ‘Grand Tournantes’— courtesy of Eurabia’s exploding Islamo-fascist demographic bomb— take the turban and await the impending implementation of sharia law.
Of course, that path merely offers a temporary end to their jihad as (inevitably) Muslims return to slaughtering each other once they’ve run out of Western infidels to pick on. The Koranimals’ Sunni-vs.-Shia internicine jihads haven’t abated for over a millineum.
Alternatively, patriotic Americans will continue our commitment to doing the hard work (started with Jefferson’s Tripolitan War on Islamo-piracy) of preserving the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity— which (yes) requires a common defense to defeat the existential threat posed by our present day Islamo-fascist enemies.
So, here’s a bonus option: Sit down and pour yourself a nice cuppa’ STFU… and let our military do their job.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
I don’t think that the federal government should spend money on anything BUT the military. Should I tax revolt too?
IP hash: 6cefb0d6
If we are going to have to increase troop strength in Afghanistan it makes sense to find a way to pay for the 30 billion dollar a year price tag (probably a very underestimated figure)
Republicans, who are gung ho for war but tighten up when it comes to paying for it, have floated the idea of cutting back on healthcare for US citizens or using stimulus money meant to ease the unemployment problem at home.. Both those options would take badly needed services and money from US citizens here at home and redirect it to foreign countries where it will undoubtedly be used to bribe unsavory characters not to shoot at our troops. …not a good idea at at time when Americans are suffering through one of the worst recessions since the great depression.
A better idea has been floated: drawing down the size of our troops stationed abroad. Currently the US has 97,000 troops stationed in Asia…including 32,000 in Japan and 27,000 in S.Korea In addition the US has 90,000 troops stationed in Europe..including 57,000 in Germany 10,000 in Italy and 10,000 in England These nations pay only a small fraction of the 100’s of billions of dollars that it costs to maintain bases and personnel.
This leaves the US taxpayer to shoulder the lions share to protect these foreign nations from invaders. Perhaps it is time to ask these countries to “pony up” or “pull out”. Many of these countries are very wealthy and could afford to pay the entire cost for their protection plus some. Some of these nations have few active enemies and really don’t need US protection. Plus the idea of stationing troops in far off lands to twiddle their thumbs is a throwback to the World War II era when moving troops from one part of the world to another could take weeks. Today’s Military leaders are rethinking the concept of fixed bases in far off lands in favor of rapidly deployed forces that could move quickly from one hot spot to another at a moments notice.
So if Republicans are hell bent on spending more US taxpayer money to bring freedom and democracy to some foreigners in a far off land who will probably not appreciate us after we are gone….let’s draw down our superfluous troops who are stationed in far off lands like Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Greece , Spain, Norway, Sweden.. and many other nations who have been relatively stable and peaceful for the past 50 years. And let’s Close those bases in countries where the governments refuse to pay for the cost of their own protection.
Then let’s use the money in Afghanistan.
At least once the war in Afghanistan is over (????) we will have made permanent base closures worldwide and can use the savings to help pay off some of our national debt. In addition it will ease the burden on US taxpayer who have, up till now, had to provide free security for allies who refuse to shoulder the burden of their own protection.
IP hash: d0ca982a
Hear him!
Bring ALL the troops home from everywhere. I think that they would be better used to protect our own borders.
The USA could do better without the rest of the world than the rest of the world could do without the USA. Let them see how things work out for them when Russia and China are dividing up the world.
Just make sure everybody knows that US B-2 bombers can drop a multitude of nasty things just about anywhere in the world.