Since the first day of his Iraq blunder the Child King and his enablers have tried to liken the effort to World War 2. Knowing they can tell their conditioned followers anything and have them willingly swallow it, conservatives have even compared this small man in the White House today to FDR, a real "War President."
WP - Aug 31, 2005 - Bush Calls Iraq War Moral Equivalent Of Allies' WWII Fight Against the Axis
Invoking the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Bush on Tuesday cast the war in Iraq as the modern-day moral equivalent of the struggle against Nazi fascism and Japanese imperialism in World War II... Reaching back into history, Bush repeatedly cited Roosevelt's steadfastness as the model for today's conflict, comparing the Japanese sneak assault on Pearl Harbor in 1941 to the al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.
If Bush wants to be a real "war" president -- let's see him make this proposal as Roosevelt did in April of 1942 and which was reported by Edward R. Murrow from England. (audio link included)
details on the flip
As we all know, the two wars are not remotely similar - one is an optional coffer draining plan-free blunder based on deception and bolstered by faux patriotism and the other was a necessary truly patriotic national effort to save the world from tyranny. However, in the long run the security challenges we face today, due to 6 years of ineptness by the conservatives running the country, may be far greater.
Look, I am not going to depress you with an in depth list of the problems our nation faces and a discussion of the inept leadership which is exasperating them. If you are here you know all that. But let's look at just one aspect which is going to make our nation - and in particular our children - less secure. That is, our nation's financial security. Slashing taxes for the wealthiest, this insane conservative policy of not paying the bills and putting off dealing with the financial challenges of the future will bite us in the butt and we all know it.
I understand Paul Krugmam said that he could not find anytime in the world's history when any nation CUT taxes during a time of war.
With that in mind, I was thinking now would be a good time to dust off a real war president's austerity proposal to secure the nation during WW2 and focus its citizenry on the challenges ahead.
So Bush, you wanna be a real war prez? ....PROPOSE THIS!!!
Edward R. Murrow, reporting from London in April of '42, informed his listeners that Roosevelt had just given a fireside chat on the subject of his proposed austerity program to support the war and secure the nation. The war president's seven point plan included a proposal to limit individual 'after tax' income to 25,000 dollars. Murrow said the British were keenly interested in how seriously the U.S. was taking the war effort. He said the Brits are often "inclined to look upon Americans as millionaires." So they took this proposal as a very, very good sign that America was serious in her efforts to win the war. When told of FDR's proposal one Brit commented, "That looks like you are getting down to business." Another said, "you American's don't do things by halves, do you?" Murrow added that there were only about 100 Brits who made over $25,000 after taxes at the time.
Judging by Murrow's report, I don't doubt FDR made this particular part of his austerity proposal to rally the British more than anything else. But with the right always trying to silence Bush's critics with cries of - "you shouldn't criticize the president during a time of war!" - why not see just how patriotic the right really is? Let's see just how patriotic the fat cats who keep the Republican Party money flowing are. I am sure any mention of this would send the cult of conservatism screaming 'socialism' - but they do that about anything anyway.
Using this nifty inflation calculator
we find that:
What cost $25000 in 1942 would cost $313698.62 in 2005.
So, in this time of war and a shaky future, with our nation beckoning for shared
"self denial", I wonder if the hard core wealthy conservatives and the chumps they drag with them would be willing to stand with their country, show their patriotism, support for the troops and the financial security of the nation by supporting an after tax max of $300,000?
hahahaha Wonder how much that would bring in? Wonder if the corporate execs would all quit in mass? Wonder if Bush, Cheney and their billionaire buddies would all have red eyes from crying themselves to sleep? haha We could put a sunset provision in and end it say...after the Social Security trust fund is replenished, all Americans have healthcare, the schools are fixed and teachers paid well, free college is offered to all, our city's infrastructures are repaired, light rail systems are up and running and the last terrorist is dead.
I am sure anyone would get blasted if they mentioned this, but maybe people would wake up to the concept of the most well off, those who can afford it, accepting a little "self denial" for their country during a time of "war" if someone did propose it? They are closing VA hospitals for gosh sake. These soldiers coming back and our nation's elderly and children have needs. Maybe people would stop and think about the hell hole Grover Norquist is digging for their kids.
Quote from Roosevelt's fireside chat 4-28-42
The blunt fact is that every single person in the United States is going to be affected by this program. Some of you will be affected more directly by one or two of these restrictive measures, but all of you will be affected indirectly by all of them. Are you a business man, or do you own stock in a business corporation? Well, your profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level by taxation. Your income will be subject to higher taxes. Indeed in these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, I do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes. ....
As I told the Congress yesterday, "sacrifice" is not exactly the proper word with which to describe this program of self-denial. When, at the end of this great struggle we shall have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice."
Here's the audio discussion of FDR's proposal - Murrow's report from the UK starts at 8:19 here. Note: you can 'right click' on the player at this link and play in your regular real player for the timer or you can also download the audio.
Krugman on the lunacy from Sept. 2003.
I don't use the word ''crusade'' lightly. The advocates of tax cuts are relentless, even fanatical. An indication of the movement's fervor -- and of its political power -- came during the Iraq war. War is expensive and is almost always accompanied by tax increases. But not in 2003. ''Nothing is more important in the face of a war,'' declared Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, ''than cutting taxes.'' And sure enough, taxes were cut, not just in a time of war but also in the face of record budget deficits. Nor will it be easy to reverse those tax cuts: the tax-cut movement has convinced many Americans -- like Tinsley -- that everybody still pays far too much in taxes.
A result of the tax-cut crusade is that there is now a fundamental mismatch between the benefits Americans expect to receive from the government and the revenues government collect. This mismatch is already having profound effects at the state and local levels: teachers and policemen are being laid off and children are being denied health insurance. The federal government can mask its problems for a while, by running huge budget deficits, but it, too, will eventually have to decide whether to cut services or raise taxes. And we are not talking about minor policy adjustments. If taxes stay as low as they are now, government as we know it cannot be maintained. In particular, Social Security will have to become far less generous; Medicare will no longer be able to guarantee comprehensive medical care to older Americans; Medicaid will no longer provide basic medical care to the poor. ...
The astonishing political success of the antitax crusade has, more or less deliberately, set the United States up for a fiscal crisis. How we respond to that crisis will determine what kind of country we become.
If Grover Norquist is right -- and he has been right about a lot -- the coming crisis will allow conservatives to move the nation a long way back toward the kind of limited government we had before Franklin Roosevelt. Lack of revenue, he says, will make it possible for conservative politicians -- in the name of fiscal necessity -- to dismantle immensely popular government programs that would otherwise have been untouchable.
In Norquist's vision, America a couple of decades from now will be a place in which elderly people make up a disproportionate share of the poor, as they did before Social Security. It will also be a country in which even middle-class elderly Americans are, in many cases, unable to afford expensive medical procedures or prescription drugs and in which poor Americans generally go without even basic health care. And it may well be a place in which only those who can afford expensive private schools can give their children a decent education.
Here's David Stockman - Reagan's economic guru - from 1993 when Clinton had the guts to stand up and stop the Republicans from bankrupting the nation.
The Myth of Federal Overspending by David Stockman
In this regard, the full-throated, anti-tax cries emanating from the Republican Party (GOP) amount to no more than deceptive gibberish. Indeed, if Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and his playmates had the parental supervision they deserve, they would be sent to the nearest corner wherein to lodge their Pinocchio-sized noses until this adult task of raising taxes is finished. .....
The root problem goes back to the July, 1981, frenzy of excessive and imprudent tax-cutting that shattered the nation's fiscal stability. A noisy faction of Republicans have willfully denied this giant mistake of fiscal governance, and their own culpability in it, ever since. Instead, they have incessantly poisoned the political debate with a mindless stream of anti-tax venom, while pretending that economic growth and spending cuts alone could cure the deficit. ......
It is unfortunate that, having summoned the courage to face the tax issue squarely, President Clinton has clouded the debate with an excess of bashing-the-wealthy and an utterly unnecessary grab-bag of new tax-and-spend giveaways.
But that in no way lets the Republicans off the hook. They led the Congress into a giant fiscal mistake 12 years ago, and they now have the responsibility to work with a President who is at least brave enough to attempt to correct it.
This is a page with several reports from the war featuring Murrow, John Daily, Eric Sevareid and many others - Lot'o history.
More Murrow audio:
FYI: The audio for "Visiting Buchenwald" has a hum in it but it stops around three minutes into the audio.
Murrow, reporting from London, was forbidden by CBS from going to the front lines.
However, he did talk his way onto a British bomber for a run on Dec. 2, 1943. His report on the 3rd is known as Orchestrated Hell! Here's the audio.