Thumbs up for tax resisters

It's April 15, the day on which Americans ritually submit to a mugging by federal and state governments. It's an especially painful day for those people who not only resent being deprived of their hard-earned money, but have to watch as the cash is then spent on programs they bitterly oppose -- which, in their opinions, do harm rather than good. Prominent among this segment of the population in these days of seemingly eternal war are people who oppose the government's military adventures. Democracy Now! has a timely interview with Pat and John Schwiebert, a Portland, Oregon, couple who refuse to pay federal income tax in protest of military expenditures.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, it’s good to be back here. John, how long haven’t you paid taxes?

JOHN SCHWIEBERT: Well, it’s been over thirty years. I’m not exactly sure. I think it was 1977 when we stopped paying.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about your decision thirty years ago.

JOHN SCHWIEBERT: I think we just pretty much together came to the realization that we’re conscientious objectors to war, and if you object to war, you don’t participate. The only way we could participate at our age at the time is by refusing to support it. And so, we just said, well, we won’t send in the military portion, the military percentage of our taxes.

...

AMY GOODMAN: And in terms of the percentage, what are you calculating, for example, this year, the percentage that would go to the military? What percentage aren’t you paying?

JOHN SCHWIEBERT: Actually, we’ve gotten to the point we’re so upset by the direction the country has taken and the demise of democracy in this country, that after the Iraq war broke out we completely stopped cooperating. So we’re paying nothing now. So the percentage that’s estimated by the War Resisters League is more like 50 percent. But I haven’t paid any attention to it this year, because we—

PAT SCHWIEBERT: We don’t care.

JOHN SCHWIEBERT: —we just didn’t give anything. We’re in total non-cooperation with the federal government.

There are other reasons to hate taxes, of course, and other harmful government programs funded by the money raised through taxation. But whatever their reasons, I think it's worth saluting folks who go out of the way to avoiding feeding the beast.

U.S. government wastes 4,000 American lives

The count only includes American service people and Defense Department civilians: 4,000 dead since the war in Iraq began in March 2003. To that you can 175 Britons and 133 casualties from other U.S. allies.

And let's not forget the Iraqis themselves: 8,057 Iraq security forces and 40,935 civilians, according to conservative reports.

That's a lot of blood, and a lot of mourners for ... well ... what?

Yes, Saddam Hussein is out of power, and his secret police are gone, but the current relative freedom enjoyed by Iraqis is heavily dependent on a continued occupation by the U.S. and (decreasingly so) the U.K. What comes after coalition forces are inevitably withdrawn is anybody's guess.

Is Iraq really going to transform into a liberal democracy? You're probably better off hoping for a somewhat tolerant dictatorship, with a less-psychotic version of Saddam at the helm who only jails you if you directly challenge his power instead of torturing and murdering people who inadvertently antagonize members of his extended retinue.

That would be an improvement. Of a sort.

Washington Post: anti-war is anti-American

In today's paper, The Washington Post's editorial board takes a few brief and well-deserved shots at some of Ron Paul's populist weak spots: his views on the Civil War, the NAFTA superhighway, the Federal Reserve Board and, of course, the racist newsletters.

But all of this is a lead-up to slamming Paul -- and presumably all non-interventionists -- because of his support of fair dealing with other countries and his opposition to the war in Iraq. It seems that opposing a bullying foreign policy and an imperial presence in a host of nations is strange, suspect and ... well ... damned un-American.

Mr. Paul goes so far as to express understanding of Osama bin Laden's antipathy toward U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, which, Mr. Paul says, created the "incentive" for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "It's sort of like if you step in a snake pit and you get bit," he told Mr. Russert. "Who caused the trouble?" During the Cold War, the late Jeane Kirkpatrick chided Democrats for "blaming America first" in foreign policy. That may or may not have been apt. But in 2008, there is one candidate to whom her words definitely apply: Republican Ron Paul.

So now the Post is echoing Jeane Kirkpatrick's smear of anybody who doesn't support aggressive use of military force to impose American will overseas? Wow. I guess that's because it's just too late in the game to sling "commie sympathizer" as an insult, and "islamo-fascist-symp" just doesn't trip off the tongue as easily as "blaming America first."

Why debate your opponents over the risks and benefits of military intervention when you can just accuse them of being anti-American?

More loot for the war machine

Oh, good God. Forget about making any game attempt to withdraw troops or block funding for President Bush's overseas adventures, congressional Democrats are actually looking forward to hiking taxes to pay for endless war -- and their favorite domestic programs, of course.

Democratic leaders seem willing to accept military escapades they supposedly opposed when they ran for office, just so long as they get to squeeze Americans a little harder.

Congress almost grows a pair

The U.S. Senate is squabbling over competing measures to fund the bloody morass in Iraq. House Democrats have already passed a measure that provides $50 billion in "emergency" funding for the war, but which sets a timetable for bringing troops home. The Senate is ... well ... not exactly rushing to follow suit. A similar proposal failed to muster enough support to advance in the upper chamber, although a rival Republican measure to give the president carte blanche also went down to defeat.

The Democrats won Congress largely on the strength of their promise to curb the Bush administration's military adventures. The great power of Congress is the power of the purse -- the president may want to go mucking around overseas, but Congress can cut off the funding for such crusades to keep the White House under control. That's why it was a pleasure to see the House -- however belatedly -- follow through on the promises that Democrats made last year.

But now it's anybody's guess whether Congress will finally address the big issue that determined last year's mid-term election, and which still dominates headlines.

Democrats still have the option of simply refusing to provide any funds for the Iraq fiasco -- if they have the nerve to keep their word.

I'm not holding my breath.

A bargain at twice the price ...or not

America's military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are running up quite a price tag.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. economy $1.6 trillion through 2009, about double the amount directly requested by the Bush administration so far, according to a report released Tuesday by Democrats on the House-Senate Joint Economic Committee.

Admittedly, the report includes some arguable figures that might or might not be reliable, depending on your assumptions.

The report includes costs not included in the administration's funding requests, including the interest on money borrowed to finance the war, an estimate of the impact on oil markets, and costs tied to treating the wounded and disabled and other related costs.

But whether or not $1.6 trillion is a precise figure, it's beyond doubt that President Bush's overseas crusades are sucking money out of the U.S. economy at a prodigious rate, with consequences yet to be determined.

Not included among the costs detailed in the report is the toll in human lives that has been accumulating since 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2003 (Iraq). To-date, that adds up to 3,863 U.S. dead, 171 Britons and 133 from other countries. That's a pretty hefty price too.

And what do we have to show for these costs? Is Osama bin Laden in custody? Is Iraq a model democratic state?

Or is the Middle East even more profoundly destabilized than it was before this mess began?

What anti-war protests?

We could have used a little more news coverage of last weekend's anti-war protests across the U.S. on the fifth anniversary of a Senate vote to authorize the Iraq invasion.

First-hand experience

Is the occupation of Iraq a resounding success? Is it a bloody failure. Well, I know what I think, but why don't we ask some folks who have spent time on the ground there?

Those hippy, peace-nik troops

When it comes to raising contributions from military personnel, the Republican presidential candidate raking in the most cash is ... Ron Paul! He comes in second among all presidential candidates, after Barack Obama.

Yes, that Ron Paul--the one who wants to end the war and bring the troops home.

It makes you think, doesn't it?

Doomed youth

Staff Sgt. Yance Gray and Sgt. Omar Mora, two of the soldiers who signed an op-ed piece in The New York Times critical of the war in Iraq, died in a truck accident in that ravaged country.

Read the full text of "Anthem for Doomed Youth" and other antiwar poems by Wilfred Owen here.

You mean there's a war on?

As part of their campaign to demonstrate that they're no better than the Republicans they replaced, congressional Democrats have backed off efforts to set a firm date for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Granted, the Democrats don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, but wouldn't it be nice if they made even a symbolic effort to win through on the one issue that most clearly differentiates them from the GOP and which won them the backing of American voters last year? I mean, c'mon, they should at least pretend that they give a damn.

Newsflash: War in Iraq is a balls-up

According to the Washington Post, a new report from the Government Accountability Office (not yet available on the GAO Website) finds that "Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress." The report stands in stark contrast to the blowing-sunshine-up-our-collective-asses version of events emanating from the White House. Of course, anybody who bothers to follow the news knows that the Bush administration's take on the ongoing occupation of Iraq reeks of well-ripened bullshit, but the GAO report adds a detailed, well-researched gloss on the increasingly obvious fiasco that is the U.S. intervention in Saddam Hussein's old bailiwick.

I'm increasingly astonished that anybody remains capable of supporting Bush's war. It's marginally understandable that administration apparatchik's remain wedded to their little overseas adventure--it's hard to admit that you've pissed away lives and money in a fruitless cause--but why do some members of the public-at-large remain in cheerleader mode? It's not like they bear responsibility for the bad choices made by the clowns in Washington.

I suspect the continued support for the war (and for other bad policies of various and sundry politicians) is a manifestation of tribal behavior. People tend to identify themselves as members of groups and to adopt the trappings of the groups with which they've affiliated. I think that's why some of the folks we all know seem to become stereotypes of themselves over time, adopting a whole package of values and attitudes as if they've signed up for a premium cable TV deal. In the case of a lot of war supporters, I'm not convinced that they actually believe the occupation of Iraq is a good idea; they've just accepted a figurative membership card with the group that's gung-ho for putting boots on the ground, so they adopt that position to be good members of the tribe.

I'd like to think the new GAO report will help to shake that tribal conviction. We'll just have to wait and see.

Telling it like it is

Here's Rep. Ron Paul in fine form at the latest debate. I'm more impressed each time I see him.

Whose property is it?

Gee. How broadly do you think the categories in this executive order will be interpreted?

That'll show those profiteers

The mob-pleasing scolds in the Arizona state legislature, along with their counterparts in Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas, have banned the use of the names of the war dead in loosely defined "commercial speech." In the process of violating the First Amendment, they've launched the most effective marketing campaign ever for the vendor of the anti-war t-shirts that are the target of the legislation.

Full story here.

A taxing conflict

The latest argument against war-tax resisters? The bastards are making pro-war "patriots" cough up more moolah to Uncle Sam to keep the troops in bullets and beer. At least, that's the line taken by Nathan Tabor at The Conservative Voice.

Anti-war zealots are refusing to pay their taxes because they say they don't want their money to pay for the war in Iraq. That means the rest of us are forced to make up for the shortfall. In other words, if you support our troops, you could face the prospect of an even greater tax burden, because some ideologues are refusing to pay their fair share.

Fair share? I thought that was liberal-speak. Since when do conservatives talk about the tax burden as paying our "fair share?"

Actually, I would have little problem with this argument if it was true. If the saber-rattlers are so sold on the wisdom of Bush's adventure in the Middle East, let them foot the cost and keep the rest of us out of it. That seems to me to be a fair allocation of the hefty bill for the foundering occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But taxation doesn't work that way. The government doesn't come up with some carefully considered total tax number needed to pay for its oh-so-important programs that it then divides among the taxpayers--and then divides once again to make up for those naughty individuals who evade their "fair share." In fact, spending is largely unrelated to what the IRS takes in taxes, which is why the government runs semi-permanently in the red. And taxes are set at whatever members of Congress and the Executive Branch believe they can get away with--minus the occasional token tax cut to keep taxpayers from becoming too ticked off.

The portion of taxes evaded by war resisters--or tax rebels of any sort--just aren't collected. Nobody's tax bill rises as a result.

This fallacy that we're somehow all splitting a dinner check and leaving honest Cousin Bill holding the bag if we skimp on our portion pops up every April 15 when newspaper editorialists and goo-goo pundits wag their fingers at us, urging us to do our duty. It's usually so-called progressives who tut-tut when the IRS announces that tax compliance has dropped below 85%, warning that honest folk will have to shoulder a heavier burden as a result. Now conservatives have joined the scrum, substituting "patriotic" for "honest," but otherwise coming off every bit as nannyish and self-righteous as their supposed ideological opponents.

I take the convergence of nagging as strong evidence that liberals and conservatives alike are drinking Uncle Sugar's Kool Aid. Whatever differences they may harbor, they share a deep-seated desire to keep the government fat and happy--and that means convincing us poor sheep to cooperate in our fleecing.

Sorry, but I'm not buying the sales pitch. I've always admired tax rebels for denying a few morsels to the government's maw, and I especially admire war tax resisters for holding back even a few dollars from the funds allocated to a bloody business.

Let's starve the beast, if we can.

War tax resistance

Via Claire Wolfe, here's an excellent AP article about the courageous people who are putting their liberty and property on the line to withhold money from the government's war machine.

No more Constitution-free zone?

Via the A.P. comes this bit of good news:

The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.

President Bush's national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and, for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday.

The advisers will consider a new proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where they could face trial, said the officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.

This isn't a total repudiation of the Bush administration's Soviet gulag-style of dealing with accused terrorists, but it is a significant step in the right direction. The suspects may get actual trials? Now anything is possible.

No peace, more spending

Tell me please, what value was there in tossing the Republicans out of the congressional majority and handing the Democrats control if donkey party leaders are going to use their new position of power to roll over on the war in Iraq?

Of course, that's not all they did; they also managed to trade away any hope for a timetable on ending the war for billions of dollars in spending on their pet programs.

Hooray for the new boss; same as the old boss.

And so much for the promises of fiscal discipline and anti-war passion the new crop of Democrats offered up during the last election cycle.

I'm at a loss for a suggestion as to where the majority of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq should turn to get us out of that mess. Even worse, people who oppose the war in Iraq and think the federal government is spending money like a drunken sailor are completely out of luck.

At this point, the main differences between the two major parties seems to be their disagreement over how to manage a war that most Americans don't want to be involved in at all, and their choice of which programs are most deserving of excessive amounts of the taxpayers' money.

Well, there's also still the hope that Democrats might be a tad better on civil liberties, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.