Tax cuts for peace?

[More Than A Feeling]

I oppose Democrats enabling President Bush's incompetence and allegiance to special interests with foolhardy pseudo-compromises that are, in reality, the Democratic Party taking it up the rear again.

So, assume that my following suggestion is implemented once Dems have taken at least one house of congress back, thereby strengthening our position enough to negotiate.

What if we offered tax cuts contingent upon them being taken from the military's budget?

Think enough Republicans would go for that, which would thereby reduce our ability to get involved in pointless wars and "interventions"?

Would it be a good idea or a bad idea to offer this?

[punpirate]

1. Republicans would be...

... the last bunch to agree to that. For many decades, they've made it their mantra--more defense spending=more security, and we do better than the Democrats.

They'd be happy to take more money out of social services in exchange for more tax cuts for the wealthy, or for corporations, though. Maybe the Democrats will ask them for more of that....

[More Than A Feeling]

2. i know you are being sarcastic

but let me affirm that I am most definitely opposed to that.

I am just throwing out ideas here. Most of them will probably be bad. But there might be at least one gem, at some point.

[punpirate]

3. Hardly being sarcastic...

... just pointing out the obvious.

Seriously, this country has been one of the most consistently warmongering countries in the world, especially since WWII. That's been made possible by overwhelmingly large defense (read: offense) and paramilitary intelligence budgets.

Many of the truly big buildups have come during Republican administrations, but the Democrats have done their share. In fact, many of the neo-cons now in power cut their defense teeth working in Sen. Henry Jackson's office.

What it's going to take to change that is one of two things--a protracted economic collapse, or a sea change in public opinion about the nature of defense spending, and I see very little chance of the latter in the foreseeable future. People no longer see these massive budgets as unusual. Nor do they see manufactured wars as unconscionable.

Those people who want lasting, durable peace are in the minority in this country. That's part of reason why it's so easy for politicians to manipulate public opinion in matters of national security.

Cheers.

[More Than A Feeling]

4. well, if Reps can come oh so close to destroying social security

surely we can learn from their tactics to act against massive war budgets and offensive wars

[punpirate]

5. Okay, who is "we?"

The Democrats in Congress supported the last several wars, even though there was plenty of evidence to suggest that at least the last two were put-up jobs. The Democrats in Congress supported the defense budget build-ups that the Bushies have designed (virtually no one in Congress will challenge a military spending bill except on the niggling details--demands for sweeping changes and massive cuts just aren't done).

And, I should add, that the Republicans aren't finished with Social Security--not by a long shot--but, for sake of argument, what tactics have they used? They lied repeatedly to the public about the facts related to the real problem; they tried to create a crisis atmosphere surrounding the issue; they proposed solutions which would have made the budget problems much worse and said they were necessary transition costs.

Now, presuming that Democrats might want to take up the issues of war and war spending (which they don't), what would happen if they used the Republicans' tactics against them? They'd be crucified in the press and in the court of public opinion. The party would be branded forever as "soft" on defense. (BTW, that term was first used on, guess who, Harry Truman in 1948 during the Republicans' attempt to retake Congress. It's an old, old battle.)

This is part of the reason why I fairly firmly believe that the only way there's going to be any change is if the average joe is directly affected by such policies. The third rail of defense right now is the draft. No one wants to touch it, because the average joe suddenly becomes directly affected by defense policy.

I don't want to deter anyone in this matter, but I am trying to be pragmatic, especially about a subject on which I've done a lot of research.

Cheers.

[spindoctor]

6. DIY

There exists a group that encourages people to withhold taxes in excess of what can be considered reasonable for the nation's defense.
They claim to have legal grounds.

I thought it was a great initiative considering how emotionally damaging it is to me that I help to fund this Administration's unreasonable aggression.

I don't recall what famous general said: "I don't care what the people think, as long as they pay their taxes."

It certainly is an interesting protest method. I am sure that if the silent majority would voice their dissent in the treasury it will have a lot more effect than marching on Washington.