Starving the Beast using the Tax Code

The Democrats, who are poised to take control of Congress in a couple of weeks, are about to face the almost insurmountable challenge of ending the war in Iraq. There is general concensus that this is the will of the electorate, but there are a broad range of ideas on how to execute that apparent mandate, from an immediate evacuation of US forces to an escalation with the intent of a swift, victorious conclusion, and just about everything in between. The Iraq Study Group report, due out on Wednesday, will likely be a mish-mash of status-quo and minor adjustments, but the basic tone is an eventual withdrawal. It get the Duh-of-the-day award for that one. Seriously though, it's unclear how the Bush administration will view the report or if they'll follow the advice of the distinguished panel. The bottom line though is that, as commander in chief, Bush calls the shots, the way he sees fit, as long as the war is funded.

Democrats could, if they wanted to, opt to stop funding the war and that would force us to pack up and leave Iraq. Of course you know what the fallout would be to that. First of all, it would never pass. Also, anyone who proposed it would be howled at for not supporting the troops.

But there is a way to do this. Imagine this:

The Democrats propose one of the biggest tax cuts in U.S. history. It's across the board and percentage based. In fact, they could even make it disproportionately slanted toward the super rich.

Here's how it works.

They come up with the amount of all income tax revenue spent on the wars, in the last fiscal year, as a percentage of all income tax revenue combined. Say that's 25%. Then, on the revised 1040 form, you're allowed to choose to fund or not fund the wars. If you choose not to, simply take that 25% percent as a deduction.

You want to see how popular the wars really are? As soon as people are faced with the choice of coughing up a few thousand extra dollars... or using that money for something more important to them, suddenly they're not so detached from the war anymore. It comes with a real price tag, and an invoice due on April 15th.

Let the American public defund the war in the same way we fund it. Use the Tax Code.

Swearing to God

For the first time in our history (that we know of) Americans have elected a practicing Muslim to the US House of Representatives. Rep. Elect, Keith Ellison, (D-Minnesota) plans to take the oath of office using a copy of the Koran instead of the Bible. As you might imagine, this has raised the ire of the religious right who are convinced that the Bible is the only acceptable publication upon which to place one's right hand while performing the pre-employment ritual designed to ensure that a newly hired public servant doesn't do anything corrupt, illegal, self-serving or in voliation of the Constitution. Perhaps if the current practice was even marginally effective, they'd have a coherent argument, but to them, it goes much deeper than that. We're talking about the Bible, the "Good Book", that venerable guide for the American race, inspired by God (R-Heaven), being supplanted by enemy's actual playbook. It's as if the gentle musings of a certain blue-eyed Nazarene are being replaced with bomb-making instructions.

Just after the election, CNN blowhard Glen Beck had Ellison on his show and asked him to prove he wasn't "working for the enemy", suggesting that if one is Muslim, one is suspect. The other day, a group of Muslim clerics from Arizona was booted off a US Air flight home because they prayed before getting on the plane.

On Wednesday, an article appeared on the American Family Association's web site [read it here] excoriating the very idea of using the Koran instead of the Bible. Dennis Prager, the article's author writes: "...imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?" (FYI, Hitler was a Christian although he didn't act like one.) There are plenty of racists in Congress who'd swear on a stack of bibles that they weren't. He also makes the analogy of secular officials using a work of Voltaire as their preferred oath book. Prager doesn't get it.

Taking an oath of office is like making a promise with collateral. It's publicly putting your soul on the line as though the book would deliver a fatal electric shock if you didn't mean it. But that's not so farfetched. To a Christian, the Bible is the most powerful symbol of their faith. It's so powerful, in fact, that it overlaps onto Jews, Mormons and Agnostics alike, who are regularly sworn in using bibles. To a Muslim, the Koran is life blood. How many people do you know that actually memorize the Bible? It's really naive, and quite stupid, to cheapen the Koran by comparing it to Mein Kamph. It's also an apostasy to over a billion Muslims.

Nothing could be more symbolic of a true committment to his oath of office than for Ellison to use his Koran. It would also demonstrate to the world that America is diverse and tolerant of that diversity.