The American Spectator

Tm| 11.24.09 @ 3:11PM

I'd prefer a tax bill checklist, each taxpayer has to pay but can allocate from a checklist. It would be a very democratic means of cutting the budget.

eg;
DoD _
DHS _
ACORN_
NASA _
HUD_
PAY OFF NATIONAL DEBT _
DoJ_
NEA_

Oldefarte| 11.24.09 @ 3:38PM

This 'war tax' is only a political cover for Democrats' evacuating our troops out of the Middle East. Clinton effectively did same [downsized our military] in order to redeploy the federal expendatures from military to domestic purposes; and now Democrats [and Obama] will use a tax as a weapon to accompolish the same thing. Even if our enemy was directly off of our shores, Democrats would be anti-war. Some would even argue appropriately that they are also anti-American [by being anti-war] by wishing to bring about this country's destruction by means of strangling our military. A counter proposal is that they are so obsessed with social program [ie Obama's welfaric healthcare], that they lose sight of this country's military defensive needs. Who knows/who cares----the bottom line is that most Democrats are IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

S.L. Toddard| 11.24.09 @ 3:39PM

"If, Sir, in this strife he (the American soldier) fall — if, while ready to obey every rightful command of Government, he is forced from home against right, not to contend for the defense of his country, but to prosecute a miserable and detestable project of invasion, and in that strife he fall, 'tis murder. It may stalk above the cognizance of human law, but in the sight of Heaven it is murder; and though millions of years may roll away, while his ashes and yours lie mingled together in the earth, the day will yet come, when his spirit and the spirits of his children must be met at the bar of omnipotent justice. May God, in his compassion, shield me from any participation in the enormity of this guilt."

- Dan'l Webster

Oldefarte| 11.25.09 @ 4:50PM

Any freshman who has studied theology/moral philosophy in college can tell you that THERE IS NO MURDER DURING WARTIME, otherwise each/every military member of each/every army throughout history would be possibly guilty of committing same. Webster was obviously ignorant of the fact that God's NATURAL LAW supercedes [and is the basis for] the LAW[S] OF MAN, but since he was a LAWYER [who mostly are not only ignorant, but stupid]------what do you expect??????

JohnD| 11.24.09 @ 3:48PM

That would be the same Daniel Webster who opposed Andrew Jackson doing away with the powerful National Bank because Webster was on the Bank's payroll and was more worried about lining his own pockets than Democracy or the good of the nation.

I see the anti-war left was the same even then.

S.L. Toddard| 11.24.09 @ 3:59PM

I'm trying to imagine what one has to do with the other. Of course the great Daniel Webster was not possessed of immaculate character: he was a man, and no man is. He was wrong on nullification as well, certainly, but that is also irrelevant to this discussion. He is right, unambiguously and gloriously, in his assertion that the death of an American soldier in a war fought for conquest rather than defense is *murder*. The guilt for that murder - that soldier's blood - is on the hands of those politicians who sent him to die, and on the gullible, servile citizens who supported the conquest.

JohnD| 11.24.09 @ 9:27PM

Webster was a shake-down artist, who used his office for self-enrichment to the detriment of his fellow citizens and the nation. If he had been able to profit from the war, he would have supported it. The real reason he opposed the Mexican War was because he did not want to admit more southern states that would have threatened the politcal power of his Yankee industrialist benefactors. Webster was not about principle, he was about self-enrichment.

S.L. Toddard| 11.25.09 @ 7:11AM

I agree with you 100% that Webster represented his region with zeal. Nonetheless, I'm trying to imagine what one has to do with the other. Of course the great Daniel Webster was not possessed of immaculate character: he was a man, and no man is. He was wrong on nullification as well, certainly, but that is also irrelevant to this discussion. He is right, unambiguously and gloriously, in his assertion that the death of an American soldier in a war fought for conquest rather than defense is *murder*. The guilt for that murder - that soldier's blood - is on the hands of those politicians who sent him to die, and on the gullible, servile citizens who supported the conquest.

JohnD| 11.25.09 @ 9:00AM

What one has to do with another is this: You quote Webster as if he were stating a principled position; Webster, based on his conduct, was only speaking out against war as a way of enriching himself and serving his own interests at the expense of the nation.

Had we invaded Canada to add Northern industrial states he would have been a hawk. It makes the quote disingenuous.

Webster was a crook; but because he was a Northern anti-slavery crook, he has been lionized. Of course, Northern industrialists who exploited and abused starving Irish workers who, when they died of neglect and disease, were replaced by another Irishman clamoring at the factory gate, were the good guys, right?

Sort of how we lionize Lincoln, who shut down hundreds of newspapers and jailed editors without trial for years just because Lincoln didn't like what they had to say.

S.L. Toddard| 11.25.09 @ 9:16AM

"Webster was a crook; but because he was a Northern anti-slavery crook, he has been lionized."

How was he enriched by the Seventh of March speech? How does his support of the Compromise of 1850 square with your rather one-dimensional characterization?

I agree with you about Lincoln, however - he is down there with the absolute worst presidents in US history, along with Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ and GWB.

JohnD| 11.25.09 @ 9:29AM

From Wikipedia:

"Webster, like Clay, opposed the economic policies of Andrew Jackson, the most famous of those being Jackson's campaign against the Second Bank of the United States in 1832, an institution that held Webster on retainer as legal counsel and of whose Boston Branch he was the director. . ."

" Henry Cabot Lodge and John F. Kennedy noted Webster's vices, especially the perpetual debt against which he, as Lodge reports, employed 'checks or notes for several thousand dollars in token of admiration' from his friends. 'This was, of course, utterly wrong and demoralizing, but Mr. Webster came, after a time, to look upon such transactions as natural and proper. [...] He seems to have regarded the merchants and bankers of State Street very much as a feudal baron regarded his peasantry. It was their privilege and duty to support him, and he repaid them with an occasional magnificent compliment.'

"Arthur Schlesinger cites Webster's letter requesting retainers for fighting for the Bank, one of his most inveterate causes; he then asks how the American people could "follow [Webster] through hell or high water when he would not lead unless someone made up a purse for him?"

So its not just me saying Webster was a crook, that is pretty much the opinion of several of America's greatest historians. Your beef isn't with me, it is with Arthur Schlesinger, John F. Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, et.al.

S.L. Toddard| 11.25.09 @ 11:25AM

"Your beef isn't with me, it is with Arthur Schlesinger, John F. Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge"

Two stone-cold Liberals and an imperialist.

You haven't answered my question: How was he enriched by the Seventh of March speech? How does his support of the Compromise of 1850 square with your rather one-dimensional characterization?

JohnD| 11.25.09 @ 12:45PM

The Seventh of March speech and support of the Compromise of 1850 were all part of Webster's self-interested attempt to win enough votes to secure the Presidency. He was trying to secure the nomination for the Whig party to run for President in 1852, his last ditch effort at the Presidency. (he lost to General Winfield Scott)

From that office he could have really lined his pockets.

On Lincoln, my feelings are mixed. Lincoln had been a lawyer representing the railroads against the people and farmers, and, as mentioned above, he trampled on individual rights and the Constitution during his Presidency. But unlike Webster, Lincoln had some principles that drove him to preserve the Union and oppose slavery. Lincoln, like most true abolitionists was a deeply religious man, and believed in right and wrong.

In contrast, I believe that Webster was a despicable, corrupt, selfish character, consistent with the Schlesinger quote above.

JohnD| 11.25.09 @ 12:48PM

I should clarify, Webster was planning to vie for the Whig nomination, but had an eye toward winning the general election by securing enough Southern votes in the general election.

By the way, our disagreement here about Webster mirrors disagreements on this same topic between many historians. I cannot say you are wrong, I just believe you are wrong.

Oldefarte| 11.25.09 @ 4:54PM

Ther is no immorality of """"MURDER"""", DUMBASS [see above]. Please go enroll in a college theology/philosophy course and stop making a fool of yourself!!!!

Derek Leaberry| 11.24.09 @ 4:23PM

David Obey may be putting forward the idea of a war tax to warn President Obama against increasing American forces in Afghanistan. It is an effort to let the President know that the Democratic Left is not behind him on Afghanistan and wants out of that nation.

db| 11.25.09 @ 2:03PM

Mr. Toddard's selection of quotes would suggest he believes Afghanistan is a project for the enrichment of Americans and not for the protection of America. However well or poorly this campaign has been conducted, there is little opportunity for American enrichment, but a great opportunity to stem a terrorist tide rising against America.

While examining the motives of a long-dead politician can be instructive, why did Mr. Toddard supply the quote? The inference in the Webster quote is if the cause for American military action is spurious, the killing is not lawful (even if legal), but murder. Therefore, if the cause be just, then the killing is lawful and legal. I believe it is a Just War. As such, we should fight it to win and fight it to its conclusion. Will we win? Those with just causes do not always win their battles, but in the long run they win – maybe a military win, but other times the moral force is what carries the day in the end.

As to the point of the original blog post, taxes won't stop a war, but using the war as the excuse to create a tax is just like making a road or bridge a toll road in order to make the project "pay for itself." Once the note is paid, it is darn near impossible to get politicians to give up a revenue source. We will be on our way to a 90% tax bracket again.

Bob| 11.25.09 @ 2:26PM

db, you cannot be a fiscal conservative and support an unfunded mandate. If Democrats AND Republicans will not lower spending, then your only choice is to tax. To do otherwise is irresponsible. Tax cuts have never grown the economy, they've only made the debt larger (I've shown the macro-economic charts many times and no one has shown an inflation adjusted chart that would show otherwise). We must cut spending! If we don't, then we need to pay for it.

db| 11.25.09 @ 5:38PM

Bob,

I agree that it is irresponsible to finance a priority with debt. That was not my point. Democrats have been looking for ways to increase the revenue stream so that they can address their domestic priorities. This has all the hallmarks of "guns and butter" in the '60's. LBJ wanted to keep funding the Vietnam War while continuing to promote/expand the Great Society.

When have Democrats actually been in favor of reducing taxes? They already deny that ending the Bush tax cuts are raising taxes. As with my toll road analogy, above, I am concerned that once the stream is turned on, it won’t get turned off.

We already have a Congress and Administration who are cavalier about mortgaging the future with reckless spending. Giving them even more is to spend is to give a drunken sailor more to drink, hoping he does stupid pet tricks…

well, comparing the current climate to a drunken sailor is to insult sailors (drunk or sober) everywhere…

Bob| 11.25.09 @ 6:30PM

db, so when have Republicans ACTUALLY been in favor of cutting spending or reducing the size of government. Reagan and Bush grew the government as much as any Democrat President -- in the case of Bush, even more.

And I think it was irresponsible of both Reagan and Bush to cut taxes without also cutting spending -- whether they have excuses or not. In fact, I think it is more irresponsible to cut taxes and not cut spending than to grow taxes and not cut spending. Fiscal responsibility is BALANCING the budget for the benefit of our grandchildren.

pigment Red| 4.6.10 @ 3:37AM

Never frown, Ink Pigments
even when you are sad,Organic Pigments because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.