Posted on 12/17/2009 2:21:21 PM PST by BGHater
Lawmakers in both houses of Congress have introduced legislation to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by using a method that's a throwback to prior U.S. conflicts: war bonds.
Saying that it would "promote national shared sacrifice and responsibility," Rep. Kendrick Meek , D- Fla. , introduced a bill Wednesday in the House of Representatives that would authorize the treasury secretary to issue and sell war bonds to Americans to fund the wars. Sen. Ben Nelson , D- Neb. , filed companion legislation in the Senate earlier this week.
"At a time of tremendous sacrifice for our military families, we need to promote shared sacrifice and shoulder collective responsibility as a nation as we fight two wars halfway across the globe," Meek said, calling war bonds a "cost-effective way" to reduce dependence on foreign creditors.
He also said the bonds would "create an outlet for Americans to express their patriotism and support for our service members as well as the security mission for which they are deployed."
The legislation comes as Congress debates ways to pay for the wars, including a tax on the wealthy. Critics note that the bonds must be repaid eventually, merely postponing the debt.
The United States last issued war bonds during World War II.
The proposal comes as Meek's support for President Barack Obama's recent decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan has drawn criticism. Maurice Ferre , Meek's rival in the 2010 Democratic primary for a U.S. Senate seat, said last week that the congressman was "putting party before sound judgment."
Meek said Wednesday that the plan put the military "on a course for success in Afghanistan that was missing for many years."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Really weird, being they already passed military funding and war costs in previous legislation, like attaching it to pork....
Still waiting for Iraq and other countries to pat their share.
“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question “– Donald Rumsfeld, January 19, 2003
“”There’s a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” - Paul Wolfowitz, March 27, 2003
This is probably the first good idea to come from congress in quite a while.
I say no to this, because I believe the money will just go to the general fund for new spending. Any bonds held to maturity would be paid out of whatever revenue from taxes.
Interesting, but why stop there? Maybe the treasury should sell special purpose bonds — war bonds, stimulus bonds, stimulus-redux bonds, bank bailout bonds, deadbeat bailout bonds, pork bonds, etc — before congress can spend money it doesn’t have.
If thats not enough then we can cut back foreign aid by 20% per any country that bad mouths us. Hear that Islamic nations?
The government practice of selling war bonds was really aimed at getting people to part with their money voluntarily -- so as to minimize black market activity when war materials were being rationed.
How about the politicians give priority of using tax money to fund the wars? If they want to sell bonds, do it for their giveaway projects.
Sorry Congress, I already send you enough money every year. Given your history, I doubt you would use the money for what it was intended. This is nothing more than another method to separate people from their money without having to call it a tax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.