Here is Gordon Adams talking about actually FUNDING the Presidents strategic approach in Afghanistan, as articulated last night at West Point.
How did this end up being the Out Back Question of the Week? I would like to know what you think about how we should fund this puppy.
Mr Adams suggests a straight Supplemental Appropriation.
He also mentions that Mr Reid and Ms Pelosi might cut a bunch of deals with fellow democrats (that would be PORK for a vote—remember Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who got, what, $100 million in PORK for her vote on Health Insurance Reform first time through?).
And someone has suggested a surtax on the income tax (House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis).
The money has to come from somewhere and the "Feed and Forage Act" is not going to cover this.
Which do you favor, and why?
Regards — Cliff
2 comments:
Surtax. Had we done that for Iraq we probably would have cut that war short by at least 4 years, reduced our debt, and not lost sight of our target in Afghanistan.
I am with Joe S on this. We should go for the Surtax. And, it should not just be a surtax on the tax we pay, but on the income we have, so that we get even more citizens (and non-citizens working in this country) paying, and thus engaged. I would have a lower limit on this tax. I would have a reporting income below which we would not add this small extra extraction, but still I would make it go below the level at which we now take taxs. And, I would not try to solve all the world's problems by making this a big tax. A small, but noticeable tax is what we need.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment