And Now For Something Completely Different

Comments

1. Michael Herdegen - October 9, 2005 @ 12:00 am

   Yeah, here’s a gem recently submitted to Sliced Bread:

   “How to stop the next war in the USA – Submitted by Paul W. in New Jersey

   We, the people must pass a law that if we are to send troops to foreign soil with any hostile intent, we must immediately levy a progressive war tax on all citizens to pay the cost, which cannot be added to the national debt. Those who have immediate family members in the active military are exempt. In addition, companies that provide goods and services to the military during the conflict must do so on a not for profit cost basis or pay stiff financial penalties for war profiteering. If every American knew they had to make a real sacrifice beyond buying a “Support The Troops” bumper sticker, maybe we would all think twice before going to war.”

   “Brilliant” my spleen.
   What we’d get are more Kosovos, where we just bomb ’em for ninety days, and don’t send troops.

   Further, what of future Somalias ?
   Were the troops there with “hostile intent” ?
   Our primary goal was to protect Red Cross food shipments, but we were prepared to kill to do so.

   If we exempt “peacekeeping missions”, then the next Iraq will be cast as just that, regardless of actual intent.

   Also, Congress could just fully fund any war, and borrow money to ostensibly pay far NASA and the National Parks.
   Like campaign finance reform, any mechanistic approach to making wars more expensive is doomed to failure. People will find ways to exploit any set of rules.

2. lonbud - October 9, 2005 @ 1:00 pm

   It’s an open marketplace for ideas. Certainly many of them are going to be dubious from the get-go, but even one which Michael would imperiously dismiss as doomed to failure has the possiblity of generating discussion:

   Why not try and come up with a reasonable formulation for when military action might have “hostile intent”? Certainly, the adventure in Iraq would qualify under a reasonable standard; the action against the Taliban in Afghanistan post-9/11 — that’s a closer call.

   Seems to me the idea is to reign in imperial aspirations, to make it clear what the costs are going to be, and how they are going to be financed up-front.

   And I think the idea of eliminating war-profiteering is rather brilliant. Capitalism has long turned to warmaking (under myriad excuses) as a means for pulling out of economic miasmae. The world, and humanity, might benefit greatly from creating incentives for a different approach to troubled times.

3. Tam O’Tellico - October 10, 2005 @ 5:39 am

   Tis a noble idea, my friends, and therefore doomed to failure.

   First of all, many of the most hideous profiteering offenders in Iraq are already operating on a “cost-plus” basis. All that means is that profits get hidden as costs like $700 to do a load of laundry.

   And Michael is absolutely correct that no matter how you structure the law, those who want to go to war will figure out a way around the law — that’s why they’re called liars, I mean lawyers.

   Fact is, the mechanism is already in place to deal with those who see the Presidency as an avenue to vent personal pique or engage in delusions of grandeur — it’s called the vote. Unfortunately, the people have spoken and have re-elected someone who apparently satisfies their bloodlust.

   In the end, it’s a simple equation — if you want mediocrity to prevail, elect the mediocre. If you want noble ideas to prevail, elect noble leaders.

4. Harshmoon - October 10, 2005 @ 5:17 pm

   Here is a brilliant (or dubious, yet thought provoking) idea: Tax the poor. Yes, actually tax people for being poor. If people in the bottom tax bracket had to pay money to the gov’t for being there, maybe not so many would. It Seems to me taxing would be cheaper than subsidizing and promoting w/ public dollars an activity (or lack of activity, so it were) that is propitious to no one.
   It may even serve as an incentive not to go to war, er, I mean be poor.

5. lonbud - October 10, 2005 @ 9:31 pm

   Is that some kind of nod to Jonathan Swift, Harshmoon? Or are you a member of the blame the victim krewe?

6. Lore Cailor - October 26, 2005 @ 3:07 am

   Personally, I don’t think there are any “right” or “wrong” answers. The problem here is that we are not “sheep” therefore we all think differently and have different views. You know the old saying “one man’s poison etc. etc.

7. Tam O’Tellico - October 31, 2005 @ 8:58 am

   Harshmoon,

   Better yet, why don’t we bring back debtor’s prison? We could return to a Dickensian world where being poor really was a crime. Betcha this administration would be all for it.

8. Harshmoon - December 4, 2005 @ 9:54 pm

   Yah, and let’s use Club Gitmo! Would it not then go to better use housing true criminals rather than the type that only sorta mighta plan to be criminals? I am quite sure they, and the rest of the world would feel much better about America once released. Such a gesture could only increase our standing among the Nations and diminish our chances of another attack. And as a bonus, that guy on Getwell will stop washing my windshield everyday when I stop at the light. Heck, a little loud music and a sun tan may do him some good, ya never know.

9. lonbud - December 5, 2005 @ 8:45 pm

   Club Gitmo is (and all the other CIA-run facilities worldwide are) unfortunately, like the Hotel California, where you can check out any ime you like, but you can never leave.