Tax-deductible invasions

Millions of Americans gave George W. Bush unquestioned support when he diverted personnel and resources from the war against al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to invade Iraq.

Several million fewer opposed the invasion, stating that the primary mission was to destroy the enemy hiding in Afghanistan that destroyed a part of America and not to expand the war.

At first, President Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, capable of destroying Israel and, if placed aboard cargo vessels, could be launched at the east coast of the U.S.

When that explanation fizzled, Bush said the invasion was to remove a dictator. Soon, "Regime Change" was the buzz phrase of the month.

Flash forward eight years. Different president. Different country. Same kind of dictatorship. This time, the conservatives have loudly cried that Barack Obama should not have launched missiles at Libya. And many liberals, while protesting expansion of war, were now facing other liberals who supported President Obama's mini-war of helping oppressed people.

The Iraq war has now cost American taxpayers more than $780 billion. The two-week (so far) war against Libya has now cost almost $750 million, most of it for Tomahawk missiles.

What's a president to do? The president's party spends millions of dollars on polls, none of which are reliable. The president is then forced to put his finger into the wind to see what the voters want-and then does what he wants to do anyway.

Whatever he does will be met by hostility on one side and near-blind support on the other. However, there is a solution. Tax checkoff.

No, that's not like a distant cousin of the Russian short story writer. It's a way for the president and the taxpayers to get the biggest bang for their buck.

Let's say that a president decides he wants to invade some hostile foreign country-Canada, for example. Instead of going into the War Room with his military leadership and plotting how best to meet the strategic, tactical, and political goals of an invasion, he stops for two weeks.

During the first week, all Americans would be sent an email, asking them if they support the invasion of the country that sends Arctic Clippers to the U.S. during Spring. At the end of that week, voting stops. Now, let's say that 40 percent of Americans think invading Canada is important and the prudent thing to do, but 43 percent oppose it. (The other 17 percent would still be trying to find out why their computers crashed.)

Normally, the president would say that most Americans don't want to invade Canada and might listen to them. But, the 40 percent are vigorous in their beliefs. No problem.

On the next paycheck will be a question. "Do you support committing American troops to invade Canada, and stopping Arctic Clippers?" Those who answer "yes" will then be assessed a proportion for the costs of that invasion, putting their wallets and purses where their mouths are.

If 60 million Americans want war, and the cost is a mere $300 million a week, then each supporter would have about $5 per week deducted from his or her paycheck. It'd hardly be noticeable. Of course, there might be a $5 surcharge for the cost of burying the dead, treating the wounded, and long-term physical and mental rehabilitation. But, hey, even at $10 a week, war is rather cheap. And, most important, all of it is tax-deductible.

Those who don't support the war wouldn't have the money deducted. They could decide to support another war later, or pay a "fair share" for more vigorous environmental regulation and enforcement, or even a few dollars a month to allow members of Congress to have junkets. Whatever is raised for junkets would be the total pool available, and would have to be split equally among the 535 members and several thousand critical staffers who, we all know, are the ones who do the work anyhow.

The Tax Checkoff System has one final advantage. With Americans deciding what to support and committing their personal fortunes or anemic savings accounts to the cause, we could wipe out the national debt and war at the same time.

 

Walter Brasch probably won't be deciding to have deductions for war taken from his pay check. His latest book is Before the First Snow, a journalistic novel that looks at the integration of war, peace, oil, and nuclear energy, all within the context of social justice. The book is available, on pre-order, from amazon.com.

 

 

Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.

Comments

  • You seem to forget that the media in the US stands to gain alot from these wars themselves and have a strong influence of the beliefs of US citizens.

    For a number of years many thought the war was not only justified but, necessary from a defense standpoint; which now most agree was totally untrue, unnecessary and frankly unwarranted.

    IMO, there are enough Americans out there desperately searching for more Kool-aid that this would turn into a very, very bad idea. All it would do is reinforce the current war-machine economy and lead to even larger military expenses, budgets and many, many, many more unnecessary wars.

    If this post was meant as satire, please disregard this comment and I apologize but if not, wow.

    Just wow.

    Posted by MIngus, 04/04/2011 3:36pm (3 years ago)

  • there is a slight problem with your system. Most wars are suppose to benefit the country. As far back as WW2 keeping us from say being invaded or bombed (although ww2 never really got that far for America, it could have and it certainly did for our allies. Others (Like Afghanistan) are to deny terrorists the ability to train and launch attacks (something we already suffered once). If the war serves it's purpose, we all benefit, not just those who paid for it. So while it sounds wonderful to say you could end war by taking an individual vote with you wallet, you can't hamstring the strongest country in the world from protecting it's interests (many of which may be legitimate, despite a generally anti-war individual's capacity to understand or concede). And you can't let half the country freeload off the other half, while enjoying what is still the world's strongest economy, but not footing the bill to keep it safe.

    Posted by TR, 04/04/2011 3:33pm (3 years ago)

  • Great in principle for some things, but how would you stop the argument coming from people who believe they shouldn't have to support anything they don't want to? Who decides what gets a checkbox and how can that really be done fairly?

    Posted by Isaac, 04/04/2011 2:17pm (3 years ago)

  • Oh, cool, we should do the same thing for welfare and universal healthcare too then!

    Posted by Mike, 04/04/2011 10:42am (3 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments