It's a long-time running joke that nothing is certain in life but death and taxes. In all honesty, it isn't a joke; but a verifiable truth. All living things, including man, die and the federal government taxes its citizens on pretty much everything. If the government needs more money to mismanage and waste, it creates a tax on citizens. This has become so prevalent that most Americans either ignore it, accept it, or complain loudly about it, but to no avail. It has become so ingrained in the operation of government to heave tax upon tax for money that government has produced a $19 trillion dollar debt -- the majority of that debt is unconstitutional spending.
Citizens of this nation, along with the rest of the Western world, have listened to UN scientists lie, manipulate, and control the data related to the weather that blames human occupation for the farce climate change. The only reason to do this is to implement some "carbon footprint tax" in a massive income redistribution scheme. Not only do citizens have to worry about the "policies" on "climate change" parting them from their hard-earned money, Democrat Senator Chris Coons from Delaware called for a "surtax" on Americans to pay for the war against the Islamic State.
Coons didn't get the memo that taxpayer money has already been wasted on ISIS, meaning Americans are already paying for this conflict. However, Coons wants taxpayers to pay more. What is left out is the fact the tax will remain afterward -- it will not be rescinded.
Appearing on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" show, Coons stated that Obama had submitted an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to Congress requesting the body declare war against ISIS. However, the one tiny little burp in the works is the fact that America has not the funds to engage ISIS in war, thereby providing a reason for a surtax.
Coons claimed that during the Vietnam War, a surtax was imposed on the public to pay for the war despite Congress never issuing a declaration of war. He also claims that all wars except Iraq and Afghanistan saw a surtax levied to pay for the war. According to the Tax History Project, Coons is correct.
In the introduction to the book, War and Taxes, writers Steven A. Bank, Kirk J. Stark, and Joseph J. Thorndike, "Beginning with the War of 1812, special taxes have supported every major military conflict in our nation's history. Moreover, many levies have outlasted the wars they financed. Politicians like to talk about their plans for revamping the country's tax system, but important tax reform usually happens when it must, not when it should. War has been the most important catalyst for long-term, structural change in the nation's fiscal system. Indeed, the history of America's tax system can be written largely as a history of America's wars."
According to Infowars.com:
The US has spent more than $5 billion on the war against IS since August, 2014.
"The daily tab for fighting ISIS had already climbed more than 20 percent between May 21 and October 15 of this year, from $9.1 million a day to nearly $11 million, according to the Pentagon's latest public figures," reports Vocative. "More than half of those costs came in the form of airstrikes, which the U.S. has employed since August of 2014 to pound Islamic State targets. Munitions, logistics and operational support accounted for the remaining costs, the Pentagon said."
The cost is expected to rise considerably now that the Obama administration has said it will step-up the campaign to wipe out the group.
Despite spending billions the air campaign has failed to weaken the Islamic State, according to intelligence officials.
In other words, Hussein Obama spent billions of taxpayer dollars, wasting it in not even a half-hearted effort to stop ISIS. Now, Congress rolls around the idea of an additional tax to pay for a costly "conflict." This is in addition to our government creating ISIS, supporting ISIS with billions of dollars of equipment and supplies to take out Assad, and training the terrorist group who has murdered non-Muslims at every turn. After spending all this taxpayer money and borrowing trillions more without one declaration of war, Congress wants to add another tax onto the American public to pay for the squander and continued conflict. Incredible.
An unnamed defense official told the Associated Press that no meaningful reduction in the number of ISIS forces has occurred. Citing intelligence reports, the defense official stated the estimated number of ISIS hovers around 20,000 to 30,000 -- the same as when airstrikes began in August.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who serves as Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, stated, "After 15 months of, 16 months of air attacks by the US, it's had minimal impact on ISIS."
King added, "ISIS, I believe, is stronger than it was 16 months ago. They certainly have a larger land mass under their control ... There's no doubt ISIS is planning increased attacks against the US."
King indicated his support for increased surveillance of Muslim communities as well as more air strikes against ISIS.
"This is nothing against Muslims, but the fact is that is where the threat is coming from. And we are kidding ourselves. We have this blind political correctness, which makes no sense," he said.
Are citizens to forget the hard-hitting air strikes by Russia, who is supporting Assad, that news media reported had a significant impact on ISIS forces? Apparently, we are. Moreover, how is pouring good money behind bad going to change the situation?
This administration is not intending on "actively" working to defeat ISIS now after 15-16 months of playing "tiddly winks" with the terrorist group and our taxpayer money. If the money had not been wasted at the start, there would be no need to implement a surtax on the citizens of the United States. The history of the "surtax" to pay for war can be seen yearly on April 15th when every America is required to file an income tax form with the government.
As explained in the introduction to "War and Taxes":
Whatever term is used, war creates new political opportunities when it comes to tax policy. Taxes are never popular, but they are never more popular than during wars. In combination, these two features of wartime politics-fiscal necessity and political opportunity-set the stage for sweeping and durable tax reform. The most compelling example of wartime fiscal sacrifice comes from World War II. In the months following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, fiscal necessity and political opportunity converged to produce dramatic changes in the nation's tax system. Though authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 and established by statute shortly thereafter, the income tax has its modern roots in the Revenue Act of 1942. That legislation, enacted less than a year after the official U.S. entry into the war, subjected millions of new taxpayers to the income tax, converting what had long been a "class tax" to a full-fledged "mass tax." More than just raising revenue for the war, the Revenue Act of 1942 gave rise to a whole new taxpaying culture.
As "Morning Joe" points out to Sen. Coons, war cannot be strictly budgeted, as needs change meaning costs change. Coons was asked, after comparing Iraq war budget projections with actual costs, how would the surtax work when costs increased. The predictable answer is the one Coons gave -- increase the surtax. The logic Coons puts forth is the surtax and subsequent "adjustments" might make Congress think about their "aggressive" warmongering talk if they had to truly vote to finance the war.
Coons' phrase, "Congress think," can certainly be classified as an oxymoron or contradiction in terms. Congress "thinks" about as much as Congress follows the Constitution. Cognitive dissonance runs strong in both chambers. What is in the forefront of the minds of Congress is now "instituting additional tax." No one is thinking about what would happen should Hussein Obama be given a declaration of war, which makes him truly the Commander-in-Chief, instead of the honorary title bestowed outside war time.
While Congress is contemplating an additional tax against the citizenry, this body forgets that Hussein Obama wants Assad out of power and will maneuver around any way he can to get funding, manpower and operational authority to do it -- even making a halfway honest effort to defeat ISIS. But, Russia supports Assad, which makes any military action against ISIS risky since Hussein Obama cannot be trusted, period, to not incite Russia by going after Assad. Kerry and Obama both are liars.
Once again, the citizens of the United States will not be asked about additional taxation as Congress mulls over how to pay for the wasted money already spent and to finance an honest effort against a force this government created, supported and financed. If things keep going, Keeli Mullins, the college student with an IQ of 6 that wanted a 90% tax on taxpayers to fund "free college educations," might get her wish. For we all know that once the government gets into your wallet, they never take their hands out.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.