Even though Tom Daschle and John Kerry have about as much credibility as Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf regarding the conduct of U.S. foreign policy these days, both men get to vote in the world's greatest deliberative body.
And guess what? A week ago, they voted to keep more of your tax money. Forever. Some $350 billion of it.
They had a little help, of course. A couple of "Republicans" went along with the scam, notably George Voinovich, a senator from my home state of Ohio. I'm ashamed that he is from Ohio. I don't mind saying that, and I don't care if I ever sell another record.
It's hard not to be a little suspicious of the timing of that Senate vote. The senators made sure to gut President Bush's tax cut the moment the "establishment media" said the war had "stalled."
Remember that? It lasted only about five minutes, but a legislative body that has blocked judicial nominees for years managed to shuffle out of its lethargy within seconds of hearing that the war might last longer than the Iowa caucuses.
Here's the real premise behind the move: If the American taxpayers are willing to pay for a war once, why not make them pay for it forever?
Now, no senator worth his or her graft is going to fail to propose budget-busting bills for consideration in their term. It is part of the political process, after all. But a measure of the sincerity of the loyal opposition in their concern for the budget can be found in a study by the National Taxpayers Union.
It turns out that senate opponents of the tax grab have currently proposed programs that would, on average, increase spending by $20 billion a year. That's shocking, until you compare it with what the people who want to gut the president's tax cut are proposing. On average, those august legislators want to increase federal spending by $90 billion a year.
Now, it would be fine if those folks had the guts to come out and say that. But instead they choose to cloak their votes in the guise of being "responsible" and paying for the war.
Personally, I can't understand why we aren't using the same financing system for this war that was used 60 years ago.
I'm thinking about a whole new issue of war bonds. We could call them Nebuchadnezzar Notes.
I can see it now: a big poster of some Marine handing a little Iraqi kid some candy bars bearing the slogan "Buy Baghdad Bonds" underneath it.
It'd be great. Everybody could get a piece of the action.
Wall Street underwriters could lead private placements. Foreign governments that actually want Saddam ousted could participate in the effort (Helloooo, Riyadh).
And those idiot entertainers from Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks might be able to redeem themselves with their fans by hawking a few notes at every concert. They'd make a hell of a lot better souvenir than some overpriced T-shirt or bomber jacket.
Plus, there's never been a better time to borrow money. So why not do what every sensible U.S. homeowner does. Want to go to Baghdad? Charge it! And leave my tax cut alone, thank you very much.
cbs.marketwatch.com{F4AF406E-113E-4616-8A6E-6DA12516E261}&siteid=mktw&dist=&archive=true |
