President George W. Bush's recent budget request to Congress proposes that more than $2 trillion of tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 be made permanent - and it requests almost $200 billion in new funding for continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When Congress considers these requests, it should also consider the sacrifices being asked of the men and women of our armed forces and their families, all of whom are carrying a disproportionate burden of waging a war with deficit spending.
If we are going to send U.S. troops into battle, then Americans have a duty to support them with the equipment, salary and health care benefits they deserve. Yet, as one Wall Street analyst has pointed out, the Iraq war is the only major conflict involving U.S. troops of this century in which Americans have not made an economic sacrifice.
There can certainly be no equivalent sacrifice to what our military personnel give to our country, but asking Americans to share the financial burden of providing for our forces in the field during a time of war is consistent with how a democracy should honor the commitment to, and of, its military. When we send our men and women into battle, we must be prepared to bear the burden and share the sacrifices they make on our behalf.
Last October, Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis., introduced a temporary war surtax to fund military operations in Iraq. As Congress addresses the soon-expiring Bush tax cuts, they should include Obey's plan as a tax offset. Shared sacrifice is rooted in historical precedent, whether it is in the form of compulsory military or public service, or in the form of a tax.
The tax surcharge is also consistent with the concept of good governance. Congress has already appropriated close to half a trillion dollars for the war in Iraq, and hundreds of billions more are requested. If this trend continues, the total cost for the war will well exceed $1 trillion.
Yet these costs have yet to be paid for, and have far outstripped revenues to pay for it. Since the war began, the national debt has increased by almost $3 trillion to $9.2 trillion. We cannot expect a windfall to make up for these lost costs any time soon. We're handing our children the credit card bill for the Iraq war; we are taxing their future.
The Iraq war will continue to have substantial costs after its resolution. And even though the burden of this war is falling on our military personnel, we are not putting aside the fiscal resources needed to restore U.S. ground forces and care for the wounded.
Resetting our armed forces and setting aside resources to support returning veterans who have been injured in the line of duty are financial obligations we must embrace to ensure our commitment to our armed forces is not forgotten.
A full 15 percent of the male veterans returning from Vietnam suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder more than a decade after the war ended. A significant number of Iraq war veterans are showing signs of the disorder today but are not screened upon discharge, according to recent press reports. We must not leave a returning generation of troops out in the cold. We must begin planning for their needs now.
That's why we need tools to maintain fiscal discipline while providing resources for the troops. Wartime contingencies require that resources be provided to support troops in the field, and the troops should be able to expect to rely on each of us at home. The tools used during the 1990s to limit government spending and balance the budget no longer exist. The tax surcharge is an instrument of good governance, providing an effective control for fiscal discipline while still making available all the resources for military readiness and capability, medical care and emergency spending.
Like other war surcharges, it will end promptly when the war stops and our troops return home. In addition, our service men and women and our veterans should be exempt from the tax.
It is time for the rest of America to stand up, recognize the sacrifices our troops have made, and share the burden of this costly war. As the Bush administration continues to ask for hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the war effort beyond the baseline budget, the Obey bill makes patriotic sense. ■
Rudy deLeon is a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, Washington, and a former deputy secretary of defense. Bryan Thomas is a research analyst at the center.
The Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is ready to test a few components that soldiers may have in their hands by 2010.
Help
