Today's Guardian reports how George Bush is to slash medical care for the poor and elderly to meet the soaring cost of the Iraq war. Bush proposes $66bn dollars of cuts to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and $12bn from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor.
I've got a better idea of how the money should be raised. Let those responsible, ie the neo-cons and their liberal imperialist allies, foot the bill.
Messrs Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Frum, Krauthammer, Kristol, Hitchens C and the Warmongering Wurmsers were itching to attack Iraq for years. They're all wealthy people, so what possible objection can they have to paying a special 'War Tax' levied on those who planned and propagandised for the illegal invasion?
In Britain, the same principal should also apply.
For a long time I was in two minds over the benefits of hypothecated taxes. But the events of the past few years, in which a group of very wealthy individuals have deliberately provoked illegal wars which they expect the poorest sections of society to pay for, (not just with their lives, but also their money), has convinced me of their necessity. How about you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I wish we could take it further.
Johann Hari now thinks egalitarian conscription would put the brakes on warmongering tendencies. This is rubbish of course. Not a single NATO soldier was sent to Kosovo, nor do you need troops to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
More effective would be a law that placed pro-war bloggers, op-ed writers etc. at the top of a conscription list. Think about it. Blair could not have invaded Iraq without the blood-thirsty support of the Daily Mail, Telegraph etc. If the likes of Pollard, Kamm, Hitchens, and all the "patriotic" media stars knew they were first in the queue for boot camp and deployment to Baghdad, they'd be joining protesters in Grosvenor Square and singing a very different tune (those who hadn't fled the country or gone into hiding, that is).
I couldn't agree more Steve.
I don't know if you saw this piece I wrote calling for conscription for pro-war hacks from the NS a couple of years back.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200405100010
The last line about book contracts and London parties is I think particularly relevant at present!
A reader also sent in some further suggestions on who should be called up:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200405170027
One final point, to be fair to the Daily Mail, their editorial line was not pro-war, and although 'Mad' Melanie Phillips writes for them, the paper does have excellent anti-war columnists like Andrew Alexander and it also regularly runs articles by Mark Almond and Corelli Barnett.
There's a lot more pro-war propaganda in The Times, where Daniel Finkelstein has unfortunately used his position as Comment Editor to propagandise for a very narrow, neo-conservative view of world affairs. (Just look at the blogs he recommends people read on the 'comment central' site. It says it all!)
Thanks for the link Neil. Excellent piece which sums up my feelings. And speaking of lucrative contracts, the sad thing is that like Robert MacNamara, alot of these characters will probably cash in on "mea culpas" (books, documentaries) in their old age when no one gives a damn anymore and will be praised for their statesman-like wisdom.
I hope we'll be around long enough to set the record straight.
PS. Sorry about the Mail. You are quite right. I should have mentioned Murdoch's diseased organs instead.
Post a Comment