If President Obama decides to escalate our presence in Afghanistan, Congressman Dave Obey (D-WI) is threatening to propose that it be paid for by a “war surtax.” After all, Republicans 
keep telling us that the deficit is a big problem, and if that’s the case then the war ought to be paid for. Stan Collender writes today that this isn’t the first time Obey has tried this tack:
In fact, I watched in awe as Obey used this same strategy about 30 years ago when I was a congressional staffer working for a member of the House Budget Committee.
The issue at the time was a balanced budget and the Republican demand that the Democratic majority agree to policy changes that would make it happen. They said they would vote against the budget unless it was balanced.
In response, Obey proposed a balanced budget and forced his colleagues to debate and vote on it. I don’t remember all the details of what he proposed, but I’m pretty sure it included the specific program-by-program, across-the-board spending cuts needed to eliminate the deficit.
I have a vivid memory of Obey opening the debate on his balanced budget plan by saying that he was proposing it not because he wanted it to pass but rather because he didn’t. He wanted to call everyone’s bluff. And he did. The Obey plan got only a handful of votes — including only one or two Republicans — and was overwhelmingly defeated.
Well, I’m sure glad I’m not president right now. But of course, this is one of the whole points of having taxation with representation: it forces people to make tough choices. You want healthcare reform? Figure out how to pay for it and then see if people think it’s worth it. A war in Afghanistan? Ditto. Maybe you favor “winning” the war in Afghanistan by sending lots of additional troops over there, but do you still favor it if you know it’s going to cost your family $500 per year in additional taxes? Because that’s about what the tab is. There’s no free lunch.
