Neuharth: Raise Income Tax So Iraq War Hawks Will Become Doves

Photo of Brent Baker.
  • Bookmark and Share

Regretting that “few grownups are concerned about the $526 billion cost so far for the Iraq war without end” because “President Bush and his rich buddies have made sure most of the monetary burden will be borne by our children and grandchildren,” USA Today founder Al Neuharth, in his weekly column on Friday, recommended “a stiff income tax surcharge” to pay for the war. But Neuharth made clear his real motive is to turn those for the war against it:

The surest way to jar us into realizing the unconscionable cost of the Iraq debacle is to impose a stiff income tax surcharge to pay for it. If we did that, most hawks would become doves overnight.

Neuharth hailed Abraham Lincoln for imposing an income tax to pay for the Civil War and stressed how the current rates in the U.S. “are below those of other major countries. France, Germany, Great Britain and Japan all assess higher rates. The Netherlands' top rate is 52% and Sweden's is 60%.”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

As always, below Neuharth's column USA Today featured one supportive and one opposing view. For this column,  Bob McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice praised the “great idea!” while Duane Parde of the National Taxpayers Union provided a solid retort:

Defense spending is topping $600 billion this year, but social spending will be almost three times bigger. Washington should cut waste and set priorities with the trillions of dollars it already has, not further loot people's wallets.

(Screen shot is from a 2004 Smithsonian event carried by C-SPAN. MRC CyberAlert article on it.)

An excerpt from Neuharth's June 27 column: “Fairest war tax is 146 years old July 1"

Few grownups are concerned about the $526 billion cost so far for the Iraq war without end. That's because President Bush and his rich buddies have made sure most of the monetary burden will be borne by our children and grandchildren.

What a difference from the war that saved our nation. One hundred forty-six years ago next week, on July 1, 1862, President Lincoln signed our first and very fair income tax law to pay for the Civil War....

It was re-enacted in 1913 in anticipation of World War I and has been in effect ever since....

Current IRS rate ranges:

* 10% for annual income up to $16,050.

* 35% for those earning over $357,700.

Actually, those rates are below those of other major countries. France, Germany, Great Britain and Japan all assess higher rates. The Netherlands' top rate is 52% and Sweden's is 60%.

Income tax increases or surcharges are the fairest way to pay for any emergencies. That's especially true of wars.

With an all-volunteer military, most of us avoid the sacrifice of service. So we should pay the bills for proper equipment, pay and retirement rewards for those who serve....

The surest way to jar us into realizing the unconscionable cost of the Iraq debacle is to impose a stiff income tax surcharge to pay for it. If we did that, most hawks would become doves overnight.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So invested in defeat... So

So invested in defeat... So nice to know who really supports their troops!

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

That old "support the

That old "support the troops" BS is about as lame as a liberals "global warming" argument. It has nothing to do with "supporting the troops" and you know it. Everybody loves and admires the courageous soldiers in our military; it is the management of the war that most people are concerned about.

Everybody loves and admires

Everybody loves and admires the courageous soldiers in our military

By everybody I think  you mean Conservatives and Republicans because liberals have a vicious hatred for our men and women in uniform. You can find their seething rage for our military just about anywhere, here is one, and another, and another.

We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States. Ann Coulter

And don't forget this

And don't forget this one

The funny thing is the second of your links, to DailyKos (what a surprise!!) talks about morality of all things, calling the troops morally retarded.

Libs claim what's right for one may not be "right" for someone else; except when they want to foist their own "morality" on others.

 

 

Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson

"just about everywhere" you say

AI...I read these posts to verify as you suggested the "seething rage" for our military.  I picked a line from one of the protesters in Berkley who said "This recruiting station recruits people to go fight and then once they fight and they serve their country, our country doesn't take care of them. That's a shame."  And the other posts you call out are in the same vein...the policy is hurting our soldiers and we need to change the policy.  I guess you see what you want to see.  Give me logical and straight examples of anti-military v. anti-policy and maybe we can have a discussion.

 

I already did

just becuase your blind hatred for our young men and women in uniform won't let you see the facts.....well.....that's not my fault.

We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States. Ann Coulter

allow me to love

allow me to love America

asking those troops assigned to the white house detail, the difference between the Bush/Clinton white house.

Its not surprising those troops under Clinton were treated, as if they had a rare disease. Called Americanism. Bush has treated those brave men and women, as 1st class American Warriors, doing a tough job.

Obama will install the Black Panthers to the Joint Chiefs???

Another media moron imparts wisdom

 Why not use obama's world poverty bill money? We can build better weapons, kill more people cost effectively and reduce poverty all at once. Let's tax the "big print media".

A Note to Mr. Neuharth

Mr. Neuharth: I am an American. I served in the United States Army in the early 1970's, as a volunteer, not a draftee. I frankly do not care what the tax rates are in Sweden, France, or Germany. I am an American. I care about this country. I have been told about the great social welfare systems of these other countries, yet, they look to the United States to defend their interests around the world. Then, of course, they demean this country because we did. Of course, I note that the great Canadian health care system has been called "broken" by its very own founder. Yet you, in the main stream press, still use it as an example of what you want to impose on us here. Once, again, I do not care what the tax rates are in those country, I do care about the tax rates here, and I do not believe that those rates should be changed upward to force the American people to have the same world view as you have.

Al Neuharth column

Hooray, Pete Wilson.    Ditto!!!!

Tax the Dems overseas Assets!

Of course Dems love these sorts of taxes since their money is safe and sound in Overseas accopunts not subject to income taxres!

Like the kennedy's and Soros', these A**holes want to tax the average Joe who can't afford to protect their assets is such manner.

Dems a nd other Liberals are the MOST EVIL people on this earth.  At least the Islamofacists are honest when it comes to their desire to DESTROY our Country and Culture!

Mr. Neuharth, you are

Mr. Neuharth, you are welcome to give 60%, or even more, of your income to the government, if you wish.

I am sick of rich people who could give what they want, but won't do it unless everyone else is made to pay more!

 

Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson

yeppers

I would think it would be responsible to raise taxes to help finance the war, if not the one in Iraq, then how about the War on Terror, which everyone supports. 

I think it would be a better gesture and actually help more than a symbolic gesture like putting a bumper sticker on your car or displaying a flag in your front yard.  I mean, these are all fine things to do, but they only accomplish so much, you know. 

It is a lot of money we are spending and in the end we have to borrow money from countries like China and Saudi Arabia.

taxes

Remember tax revenue records were being broken with reduced tax rates. The fact that the government manage to find a way to waste all the additional money points to the true problem.

Funny in his comments he did

Funny in his comments he did not state how the economies are doing in those other countries as a result of the higher taxes:) How about the Democrats and Republicians quit trying to add pork to everyday that they vote on? That alone could save billions:) Oh wait I forgot he wants to lose the war that we are currently winning.

Defense is what taxes should be paying for..l.

...not entitlements.

Saylman, a question for you. How much have you sent in on your own or how much are you planning on sending? Since you obviously believe in the idea, I think leadership from you, instead of rhetoric, is appropriate. Share your amounts with us and show you have put your money where your mouth is and I will heap praise upon your integrity while I may disagree with you.

Next, the defense of the country is something the federal government should be doing, as they are, and as such, defense of the country is covered by our current taxes. Entitlements, on the otherhand, should not be, imho, funded by the federal government. In fact, the government should not be in the etitlement business at all.

So, our current system already provides for the defense of our country. Entitlements and giving people something for nothing are what are sending our country into bankruptcy - financial and moral.

Dan

 

 

Dear Libs,

Normally I don't root for the disease. But in your case I am willing to make and exception.

To jcrapes and danhat

I"m taking this chance to respond to both of your replies.

To Jcrapes: You are right about one thing.  Nothing excites me more than the possibility of losing the war.  That's a very juvenile statement.  What would someone like me have to gain by this happening?  And how could you read my post, which basically read that raising taxes to help pay for the war migth not be a bad idea and morph it into wanting to lose the war?  Let me follow it.  Taxes get raised.  There would be more money to spend in Iraq and The Global War on Terror.  Folow Point A to Point B and the only obvious conclusion is that I sound like someone who "wants to lose the war we are currently winning.".  Your logic sucks, but it is an easy label to give me I guess. 

To Danhat:  I have not sent in any money.  I don't plan on sending anything.  I also don't plan on wearing a pin, praying, putting a bumper sticker on my car, going to any kind of rally, or signing a petition.  I try to be consistant when it comes to empty gestures.  That does not mean that raising taxes to help finaince the war wouldn't be reasonable or responsible, regardless of whatever contribution to the war effort I make on an individual level.

I wsn't talking about entitlements.  Granted, you could tie some entitlement programs into different subsections of the armed forces, such as Veteran's Administration Program's, but I"m more or less talking about operational cost in relation to the current ocupation.

 

Ok Saly do our men and

Ok Saly do our men and women have a purpose being in the Middle East?  Do you know how much extra the operational costs are, I clue ya in tehy are not the 600 billion posted.  And is it worth the money for teh security it brings?  I look at it as insurance; insurance is paid whether or not the premium is collected on.  We are paying the insurance premiums for the world.

We never get paid for all the money we spent during WWII or Korea and there was no tax enacted.  So why should we enact a tax for this one?  I think we should tax the world.  We should pull out of all non essential bases overseas and stop giving any funds to other countriesno matter what.  I imagine taht would go a long way to pay for any funds.

Above all stop paying UN dues and kick them out.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

back at ya saylman :-)

Saylman,

I won't disagree about empty gestures. However, you sending in money on your own would not be an empty gesture. It would speak volumes about your character regardless of where you might stand on the war on terror. I would have nothing but respect for you even if I might disagree with you on some things. It is the rhetoric of wanting everyone to do so that is empty.

You can lead or spout empty words. Your choice. I won't think less of you either way and it certainly does not matter what I think. I won't be sending extra money either. But I am not asking to raise taxes on everyone. If I were calling for something like this, I would hope that I would lead by example. I would do myself what I am expecting of others and I would do it first.

My argument about raising taxes is simply this; there is plenty of money to go around. Plenty. Between waste and entitlements, there is absolutely no need for additional taxes. None.

You never, to me anyway, came across as someone wanting to lose the war on terror.

I do not think that anyone would argue that the role of the federal government is to protect its citizenry, particularly from outsiders. Spending taxpayer money on defense sure beats spending it on midnight basketball. THAT, imho, is never the governments job.

And while I could be wrong, I think that our military spending as a % of GDP is either quite average or even low, from an historical perspective.

Regards,

Dan

 

Dear Libs,

Normally I don't root for the disease. But in your case I am willing to make and exception.

"Let me follow it. Taxes

"Let me follow it. Taxes get raised. There would be more money to spend in Iraq and The Global War on Terror."

Except that it likely wouldn't be more money for either of these things, but let's put that aside. The government has collected at least 10 trillion dollars in taxes since the War on Terror began. We already have/had plenty of money to fund it. There's no need to increase taxes on anyone to pay for it.

The problem isn't a lack of money. What does it take for people to get that giving government more money will not encourage them to spend it responsibly? You could raise the tax rate to 75%, and they still wouldn't have enough money.

Why pay?

Why raise taxes when we can continue to sell our country off to China? 

WAR SURCHARGE "SUGGESTION"

Why not have a surcharge for everything NOT specified by the U.S. Constitution? How many trillions would that be?

My guess is Mr. Neuharth

My guess is Mr. Neuharth would claim to be exempt from such a tax as he never supported a war against terrorism.  I'm glad he was reminded we are paying for this war with our taxes but unfortunately so much of those taxes our wasted on other domestic spending that is out of control.

Good News Neuharth

There's good news  Neuharth. The IRS will take your check!!!  Ease your conscience and file a return without any deductions so you can maximize your taxes.  You can also send in an additional billion or so if you wish.  The money will not be sent back to you.

Feel good Al.  Write that check right now.  While you're at it, stop printing USA Today to help in the fight against Global Warming.

 

Support the Troops, NOBama

I'd pay it.

God Bless the USA.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.