Shared Sacrifice is Code Speak for More Taxes

Shared Sacrifice is Code Speak for More Taxes

Share this

rationGI2Here we go again. It seems never ending, doesn’t it, the innovative ways our leaders concoct to tax Americans to death.

Of course, they have no choice, they are spending money more recklessly than Charlie Sheen at a Beverly Hills nudie bar.

This latest is from Kay Bell:

Officially dubbed the Share the Sacrifice Act by its sponsors, the bill would impose a surtax on most taxpayers. The levy would increase with the amount of income earned, reaching 5 percent on those in the highest tax bracket.

Kay says the bill makes an exemption for those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan since the 2001 terrorist attacks and for families who have lost an immediate relative on one of those fronts.

The measure was introduced by David R. Obey, (D-WI), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee along with 10 co-sponsors.

George Bush’s call to sacrifice

You might recall that during the Bush presidency Democrats who were opposed to the Iraq war interminably kvetched that our soldiers were the only ones being asked to make sacrifices in the war on terror.

That irked me then and it irks me now.

The left lambasted Bush because, they said, the Patriot Act had taken away some of their precious freedoms. Apparently, for liberals giving up a little privacy is too much to ask even though American troops are giving up their lives and limbs in Kabul and Baghdad.

Keep this in mind whenever you hear a liberal talk about shared sacrifice. And check your wallet because what he really means is he wants to increase your taxes.

War as political football

This may be a political trap.

Obama is in a bind. If he grants General McCrystal’s request to station 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan, he will be vilified by the left and greatly diminish his chances for re-election in 2012. However, if he fails to grant the request, he runs the risk that the war will be lost and the defeat laid on his doorstep. Also, not an attractive campaign plank.

So it’s not inconceivable that he and the Democrats have conjured a scheme that they hope will force anti-tax Republicans into opposing the funding of the additional troop deployment.

It’s a brilliant one, too. If the tax increases don’t pass, he can say, “I wanted to deploy the troops but the Republicans didn’t think it was worthy of the funding.” If the tax increase does pass, he can tell the left that at least the troop deployment was funded and the cost will not be taken from domestic entitlement programs.

I am suspect of conspiracy theories of any kind, but if this one is true, President Obama is passing the buck because he lacks the political courage to make the admittedly difficult decision between what, on the one hand, would be an escalation of the Afghan war and, on the other, a practical surrender to the Taliban. So instead, he dishes it off to Congress and says, “here, this is too hot, you handle it.”

Update: The New York Times is reporting that President Obama has already decided to increase troop levels in Afghanistan by as much as 35,000. He says he will go public with his decision one week from today. If Obama doesn’t tie the troop increase to specific war funding like Obey’s Shared Sacrifice bill, then I guess I’ll have to eat crow. Let’s wait and see what he says next week.

About Peter Pappas

Peter is a tax attorney and certified public acccountant with over 20 years experience helping taxpayers resolve their IRS and state tax problems.

He has represented thousands of taxpayers who have been experiencing difficulty dealing with the Internal Revenue Service or State tax officials.

He is a member of the American Association of Attorney-Certified Public Accountants, the Florida Bar Association and The Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants and is admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court, the United States Supreme Court, U.S. District Courts - Middle District of Florida