"Share the Sacrifice" Act: Make the War in Afghanistan Deficit Neutral.

Watching the relative progress of health care and war spending through Congress over the past year, many a health wonk has snarkily wished that Gen. Stanley McChrystal had to present a plan to ensure the War in Afghanistan was also deficit neutral. Now some powerful members of Congress agree. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair John Murtha, and Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson, and House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank have all signed on to the "Share the Sacrifice" Act, which would impose a war surtax starting in 2011 (in order to allow more time for economic recovery):

“For the last year, as we’ve struggled to pass healthcare reform, we’ve been told that we have to pay for the bill – and the cost over the next decade will be about a trillion dollars. Now the President is being asked to consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which proponents tell us will take at least a decade and would also cost about a trillion dollars. But unlike the healthcare bill, that would not be paid for. We believe that’s wrong,” said Obey, Murtha and Larson. “Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for.”

“The only people who’ve paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families,” they added. “We believe that if this war is to be fought, it’s only fair that everyone share the burden. That’s why we are offering legislation to impose a graduated surtax so that the cost of the war is not borrowed.”

I spoke with Ellis Brachman, Obey's spokesperson, to get more details on the plan: Essentially, below the $150,000 level, the 15 percent bracket for a family, there would be an increase of 1 percent of your current level, so for most people that would be 15.15 percent. Separate changes would happen between the $150,000 to $250,000 income level and above $250,000, which would be set by the president depending on his eventual decision on what to do in Afghanistan; currently, the war costs about $68 billion a year, but that could increase if the White House decides to send more troops or spend more money on development projects.

While this does present a serious challenge for those who would champion putting more resources into the conflict, but it will be hard for them to argue against this bill in good faith. These members of Congress are right to point out that many Americans are insulated from the effects of this conflict, and the least they can do is feel it in their pocketbooks. Should this bill come to a vote, it will be especially hard for Republicans who support the war effort but don't, in general, support higher taxes for any reason. (That's fiscal responsibility!) For now, it's just one more wrinkle in President Barack Obama's effort to make the right choice in Afghanistan, but if it forces him to make a real case to the American people about what U.S. forces are doing in Afghanistan and why it is worth the price, then it can only be a good thing. And if this legislation highlights his inability to do that, even better.

-- Tim Fernholz