Dissident Veteran For Peace

I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.

Source: Attributed to Baron Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild in The Independent (UK). Baron Rothschild was the father of Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild. Among other things, the elder Rothschild, in 1887, financed the notorious De Beers diamond conglomerate in Africa. The son was the Lord Rothschild to whom the infamous Balfour Declaration was addressed.

Note: Versions of this quotation are prolific on the internet. However, there are also many claims that the quote is apocryphal (see e.g. this one). I don't know the truth; however, I do know that my source is a 2004 article authored by Paul Vallely (a distinguished British journalist and editor) and published in a reputable British newspaper. Vallely could have been clearer about which Nathan Rothschild he was referring to. Nevertheless because Vallely says in the same paragraph from which the quote derives that "in 1885 he was given the hereditary title of Baron Rothschild" I conclude that he attributed the remark to Nathaniel Mayer.

Labels: banking, diamonds, Empire, Israel, money, Palestine, quotations, Rothschild, Zionism

Look, this is Turks and Caicos ... It's a home to dirty money, which, as T. S. Eliot would observe, is a tautology, because there isn’t any other kind these days.

Source: Character of CIA agent Curtis Pelissier (Christopher Walken) in David Hare's Turks & Caicos (2014)

Labels: film & television, money, quotations

As confirmed in the DVD bonus features, The International (2009) is transparently inspired by the case of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). In its heyday, the BCCI was one of the world's largest banks.

BCCI was dissolved in 1991 amidst charges of fraud, arms trafficking, money laundering, and other crimes. The bank served as a CIA conduit and according to the film's screenwriter, Eric Warren Singer, the BCCI was also a Mossad tool (for more on this subject see The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America by Peter Dale Scott (Univ. of California Pr., 2007)).

In 1992, über-Zionist Clark Clifford and his law partner Robert A. Altman were indicted by a grand jury in connection with the scandal at the behest of Zionist Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau. However, as with the fictional bank in The International, no one was ever held criminally responsible for BCCI's conduct. The charges against Clifford were dropped and Altman was acquitted.

Likewise, Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. The 1992 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations BCCI report said of him:

Marc Rich remains the most important figure in the international commodities markets, and remains a fugitive from the United States following his indictment on securities fraud. BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980's amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involving in U.S. guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's relationship with BCCI requires further investigation.

Three months after he was pardoned the New York Times reported: "Israeli officials disclosed in interviews that they rallied around the campaign out of gratitude for Mr. Rich's philanthropy in Israel and because of Mr. Rich's clandestine role as a 'sa-ayon,' a Hebrew word for an unpaid supporter of intelligence operations. Mr. Rich, they said, financed sensitive missions and allowed agents to use his offices around the world as cover, when Israel was isolated diplomatically." After Rich died in 2013, he was buried in Israel.

If BCCI was such a useful tool then why was it shut down? I can think of at least two possibilities: First, BCCI had become so exposed that it was a liability, a magnet for investigations; closing it was damage control. Second, at times even elites have disagreements, BCCI may have been shut down because its principals had simply made too many powerful enemies.


Below are two outtakes from the film.

Character of Italian arms manufacturer Umberto Calvini (Luca Barbareschi at 35:10): "the real value of a conflict, the true value, is in the debt that it creates. You control the debt, you control everything ... this is the very essence of the banking industry, to make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt."


Character of New York District Attorney "Arnie" (James Rebhorn at 59:30): "Do you have any idea of the shitstorm you've gotten me into?"

Character of Assistant District Attorney Eleanor "Ella" Whitman (Naomi Watts): "We're just trying to get to the truth."

Arnie: "I get it. But what you need to remember is that there's what people want to hear, there's what people want to believe, there's everything else and then there's the truth."

Ella: "Since when is that okay? I can't even believe you're saying this to me. The truth means responsibility, Arnie."

Arnie: "Exactly, which is why everyone dreads it."

See also: Puppets & Money

Post last revised: 12 September 2015 

Labels: banking, Clintons, debt, Israel, money, Pakistan, quotations, United States, video

One element, however, tends to go flagrantly missing in even the most vivid conspiracy theories about the banking system, let alone in official accounts: that is, the role of war and military power. There's a reason why the wizard has such strange capacity to create money out of nothing. Behind him, there's a man with a gun.

True, in one sense, he's been there from the start. I have already pointed out that modern money is based on government debt, and that governments borrow money in order to finance wars. This is just as true today as it was in the age of King Phillip II. The creation of central banks represented a permanent institutionalization of that marriage between the interests of warriors and financiers that had already begun to emerge in Renaissance Italy, and that eventually became the foundation of financial capitalism.

Source: David Graeber. Debt: The First 5,000 Years (New York: Melville House Publishing, 2011) p. 364.

Labels: banking, conspiracy, debt, militarism, money, War

Last October, the Jewish Daily Forward reported: "[Janet] Yellen, whose nomination to head America's central bank was reported Tuesday, will follow her immediate predecessor Ben Bernanke who was Jewish, and Bernanke's immediate predecessor, Alan Greenspan, who was Jewish, too. There have been two other Jewish fed chairs in the past century. In fact, the other frontrunner for the position, Lawrence Summers, was Jewish too." This month Bloomberg reported: "Former Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer is President Barack Obama's leading candidate to become vice chairman of the Federal Reserve ..."

In light of these developments, Tablet magazine wistfully asked: "Janet Yellen Is Poised To Be the Third Jewish Fed Chair in a Row. Where Are the Anti-Semites?"  Author Weiss observes: "despite this historic Jewish run, anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jewish control of the world banking system seem, if anything, less common than they once were—all the more surprising because the degree of influence American central bankers have in the global financial system today surpasses anything the Rothschild tycoons were able to maintain at the height of their influence."

While contemplating the curious Jewish dominance of the US Federal Reserve Bank, I was reminded of these words attributed to Baron Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild: "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply".

See also:

• "Diversity" Means No Protestant Christians on US Supreme Court
• Jews Could Decide Dems Presidential Nominee
• Jewish Grip on Washington Tightens
• Quotable: Free to Choose a Pro-Israel Candidate
• Waxman, AIPAC on US Elections: No Sweat for Israel

Update: Puppets, Money, & Iran

Labels: banking, government, Jews, money, quotations, Rothschild, United States

Unless you're already a telephone war tax resister then Uncle Sam, a.k.a. Uncle Scum, may owe you a refund. Thanks to corporate greed, the Internal Revenue Service conceded last May that its excise tax on long distance telephone service is illegal.

The federal telephone excise tax began with long distance calls under the Spanish War Act of 1898; it was applied to local calls shortly before the US entered World War II. The War Resisters League estimates that in 1972, perhaps one-half million people resisted the US war in Vietnam/Southeast Asia by refusing to pay the federal telephone tax. In 1990, the tax was set at 3%; phone companies collect the tax for the IRS and the money is allocated as general revenue for discretionary spending. According to IRS figures, from 1995 through 2001, the tax brought in over $34 billion to the US Treasury, including a record $5.7 billion in 2001 alone.

According to the IRS' "Telephone Tax Refund Questions and Answers" page, the IRS "will refund to you the taxes on long-distance or bundled service billed to you for the period after Feb. 28, 2003 and before Aug. 1, 2006" plus interest. To get this money you have to request it when you file your 2006 tax returns. Sweethearts that they are, "The IRS is making it easier for individual taxpayers by offering a standard refund amount between $30 and $60, so that these taxpayers don’t need to gather old phone bills."

The tax change does not apply to local telephone service. So, if you're opposed to the US war in Iraq and against funding the US war machine in general then now is a good time to consider telephone war tax resistance. Check out Hang Up On War! which is sponsored by the Iraq Pledge of Resistance network, which coordinated nonviolent civil disobedience actions to oppose the war; the War Resisters League, which has supported war tax resisters at all levels since World War II; and the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, a network of organizations that provide resources, information, and support for war tax resisters.

See also:

• War Tax Resistance: An Idea Whose Time Has Come . . . Again? (CommonDreams.org April 12, 2002)
• If You Work for Peace, Stop Paying for War (CommonDreams.org March 21, 2003)
• Telephone Excise Tax Refund (IRS)

Labels: Internal Revenue Service, Iraq, money, war tax resistance

Below in italics and block quote are my responses to an August 2, 2006, comment by Chris Fretz, a staff member of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. Not all of his comment is reproduced below. I have emphasized some of his words by underlining them.

... Below you will find each question, followed by our response.

1. Why should War Tax Resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation (COMTs) or their allies support a bill that would admittedly INCREASE federal revenues?

As you said, HR 2631 would increase federal revenues. However, the bill also states "It is the sense of Congress that any increase in revenue to the Treasury resulting from creation of the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund shall be allocated in a manner consistent with the purposes of the Fund." Your question implies that War Tax Resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation (COMTs) are anti-government.

No, it does not. Even WTRs/COMTs who are not anti-government should be concerned about increasing federal revenues when HR 2631 does absolutely nothing to cut military spending. There is nothing very conscientious about feeding more money to the war machine but doing so indirectly and then patting yourself on the back for it.

... Many WTRs/COMTs support this legislation because they want their beliefs to be respected, and to have a legal option to pay their taxes without their personal tax money being spent on military activities. This legislation would increase revenue that would be allocated in a manner consistent to the purpose of the Fund, which is to extend COMT rights, and it would give them a legal option that does not violate their conscience. I hope you will come to see how that goal is worthy in itself.

Money is fungible and I don't see anything "worthy" in creating a feel good shell game that increases federal revenue and splits the WTR/COMT community.

2. Is there any evidence that HR 2631, if signed into law, would actually divert a single penny away from military spending?

The Campaign has never claimed that HR 2631 would divert money from the pentagon.

Well, this is an honest admission and I thank you for it.

Money is fungible, and HR 2631 would only divert money from military spending if enough taxpayers paid into the Peace Tax Fund that the government’s general fund became smaller than the military budget. That may seem unlikely, however, many taxpayers who are not currently WTRs/COMTs might use the bill once they become aware such an option exists.

A reasonable estimate that I quoted previously is that "in order to make any reduction to the 26% of every tax dollar that is spent for military purposes, more than 74% of taxpayers would have to declare themselves conscientious objectors." HR 2631 relies upon an already onerous statute that defines a conscientious objector as a person "who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." However, the statute continues: "As used in this subsection, the term 'religious training and belief' does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code.

If you're going to go forward in this effort then why not at least adopt a less burdensome definition of conscientious objector? I recommend that you have a look at HR 5060 (102d Cong., 2nd Session).

However, the main goal of the bill has always been to extend to WTRs/COMTs the rights COs have enjoyed since 1940 by ensuring that legal penalties are not imposed because of their beliefs that killing is wrong, and so is paying others to kill in their names.

It would be much more honest and accurate to say "to extend to some WTRs/COMTs the rights some COs have enjoyed." Non-religious and other COs have always been excluded "since 1940" and they and others would be left out in the cold by HR 2631.

3a. If HR 2631 was signed into law wouldn't some WTRs/COMTs understandably still refuse to pay because they realize that money is fungible and the bill INCREASES federal revenues?

3b. Isn't it likely that prosecutors would invoke failure to avail themselves of the provisions of HR 2631 as an aggravating circumstance when prosecuting such WTRs/COMTs?

3c. Doesn't HR 2631 potentially create two classes of WTRs/COMTs--one legal (but helping to INCREASE federal revenues), the other illegal--thereby splitting an already too small movement and furthering a divide-and-conquer strategy by the government?

It is a personal choice whether one pays their full income taxes or practices war tax resistance. It would also be a personal choice whether or not a WTR/COMT would use the Peace Tax Fund.

Why not work to give them a real choice instead of a feel good shell game choice that would likely never divert a single penny away from the Pentagon? A Peace Tax Credit Bill would do that.

Some WTRs/COMTs may still refuse to pay taxes after HR 2631 is signed into law.

Yes, the WTRs/COMTs who are really conscientious, who don't want their money used to kill. They would continue to resist and they would be left out in the cold by HR 2631.

But we simply want to give people that choice. WTRs/COMTs do actually suffer at the hands of the IRS, which recently sent 3 WTRs to prison – a very rare punishment and troubling development. Had the bill been law, it would have prevented this abuse of conscience.

Not necessarily, what evidence do you have that the three WTRs in question would have paid under the scheme envisioned by HR 2631?

To be honest, we don’t know if prosecutors will consider failing to use the provisions of 2631 as an aggravating circumstance. That will probably vary greatly from case to case depending upon the WTR/COMT’s circumstance and legal argument.

How about including a clause that addresses the issue explicitly?

I think that most WTRs/COMTs would be glad to have legislation that brings attention to their dilemma of conscience. While the bill does not decrease military spending,

Again, an honest admission for which I am grateful.

a worthy goal of many other campaigns and organizations, it does recognize that conscientious objection extends not only to physical participation in war, but to financial participation as well, and increases visibility that such beliefs exist in our country. ... The bill would also require the government to report the level of Peace Tax Fund usage, providing a measure of the number of taxpayers who are COMTs. This would add to the dialogue about military spending priorities and could build momentum toward changing current priorities.

We can't know the future, and laws can be amended as necessary. First we have to pass the bill.

Why put so much time, energy, and money into a very faulty bill to be amended later? Why not put forward a good bill that would still raise the important issues and would deprive the Pentagon of its blood money? Why not ask for what you want at the outset and compromise if you must but only when you have a real chance of getting something passed?

... 4. Have supporters of HR 2631 considered a Peace Tax Credit bill that instead of increasing federal revenues would give WTRs/COMTs a 100% tax credit for money spent on non-profits charities, non-profits, etc.? If not, why not?

The Campaign has been around for over 30 years and continues to evolve. In the peace tax movement there has not been broad consideration of a Peace Tax Credit Bill.

It doesn't seem like much evolution is going on. The bill is very faulty and in 30 years these faults have, apparently, not been corrected. Maybe it's time to punctuate the equilibrium.

However, our legislative committee carefully considers how the legislation gets written, though ultimately the final phrasing is up to our lead sponsor in Congress, which is currently Rep. John Lewis (GA-5). If you have ideas on how the tax credit idea would be implemented I’d be glad to discuss it with you. You are also welcome to make a written proposal to the Campaign’s board of directors. But the Campaign remains focused on passing the bill that we have and trying to build grassroots awareness and support among our allies.

It doesn't seem like the Campaign is really very open to change or constructive criticism.

In sum, if you want to send more money to the war machine, split the war tax resistance movement, and help set up a feel good shell game then the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund bill (HR 2631) is for you. If you want a legal way to stop feeding the war machine against your will then encourage the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund to drop its support for HR 2631 and to start drafting a Peace Tax Credit bill.

...

Peace,

Chris Fretz
National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund

See also:

• Concerning the Peace Tax Fund Bill
• Concerning the Peace Tax Fund Bill--Part II

Labels: critical thinking, money, Peace Tax Fund Bill, politics, resistance, United States, war tax resistance

I don't claim to know if Dean Zimmermann, a former Green Party Minneapolis City Council member, really accepted the bribes he was convicted last week of taking--maybe there was no quid pro quo. However, as an outsider, the case against him looks pretty damning and his defense attorney did not deny that Zimmerman took $7200 in cash from a real estate developer. The defense argument is that there was no bribe and if there was a bribe, well, then Zimmerman was entrapped.

However, during the trial Zimmerman admitted to lying to the FBI about the money. He also admitted to having $35,000 in credit card debt last year when he took the money. Although, in an interview with Minnesota Public Radio last year he said, "I live a pretty frugal life and, you know, I ride a bike and we have an old junker car and money for me personally is never a significant thing." He also portrayed the FBI investigation as "an attempt to silence him and the Green Party." In any event, it looks pretty clear that Zimmerman had strayed far from at least a couple of the Ten Key Values in deciding to accept the money and this whole matter is a stain on Greens.

After the guilty verdicts, the Green Party of Minnesota said in a press release:

The Green Party of Minnesota reaffirms its belief that Dean Zimmermann had no intention to solicit or take bribes. We base this on his record of more than half a century of service to his community and active work for justice. We recognize that he has made serious mistakes in the handling of funds, and we do not condone or excuse those mistakes. Nevertheless, we believe that he was never motivated by personal gain.

Thanks to deesings and others over at the Green Commons where I first learned about this. See also Minneapolis Confidential for trial notes and local media coverage.

Labels: Greens, money, politics

This is an old story from the Christian Science Monitor but it was news to me and I figure I'm probably not the only one.

Work & Money
from the December 09, 2002 edition

Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US Google cache here

By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.

This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.

For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.

And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.

Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.

Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.

"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine.

These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known.

One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars.

In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.

That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 billion.

Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.

Other US help includes:

• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.

• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.

• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects.

• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.

• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.

US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.

• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.

• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.

Stauffer's list will be controversial. He's been assisted in this research by a number of mostly retired military or diplomatic officials who do not go public for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they criticize America's policies toward Israel.

Editor's note: A previous version of this story incorrectly reported the amount of housing loans guaranteed by the US.

See also: Editor's note regarding objectivity in this column.

See also Miftah: US foreign aid to Israel

Labels: Israel, Israel Lobby, money, United States

I first discussed this topic in my post of June 26. I recently got an e-mail from a volunteer with the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. He hasn't really addressed my longstanding concerns about the legislation but then he probably hasn't seen them but he'll get his chance. Here's the text of a message I sent to him:

Hi [name withheld by request],

I have some questions for you.

1. The proposed legislation (currently HR 2631--the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act) says, "The Joint Committee on Taxation has certified that a tax trust fund, providing for conscientious objector taxpayers to pay their full taxes for non-military purposes, would INCREASE Federal revenues" (emphasis added). The text of a previous version (HR 1186) of the bill claimed that two committees/studies determined that the bill, if passed, would INCREASE total federal revenues. Why should war tax resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objector to Military Taxation (COMTs) or their allies support a bill that would admittedly INCREASE federal revenues?

2. Money is fungible, is there any evidence that HR 2631, if signed into law, would actually divert a single penny away from military spending?

3. If HR 2631 was signed into law wouldn't some WTRs/COMTs understandably still refuse to pay because they realize that money is fungible and the bill INCREASES federal revenues and isn't it likely that prosecutors would invoke failure to avail themselves of the provisions of HR 2631 as an aggravating circumstance when prosecuting such WTRs/COMTs? In short, doesn't HR 2631 potentially create two classes of WTRs/COMTs--one legal (but helping to INCREASE federal revenues), the other illegal--thereby splitting an already too small movement and furthering a divide-and-conquer strategy by the government?

4. Have supporters of HR 2631 considered a Peace Tax Credit bill that instead of INCREASING federal revenues would give WTRs/COMTs a 100% tax credit for money spent on non-profits charities, non-profits, etc.? If not, why not?

Salaam,

Michelle

I'll keep you posted on what the Peace Tax Fund volunteer has to say or maybe he'll leave a comment or two.

Below is a section from the "Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act" Wikipedia article that illustrates why I think the legislation may be a well-intentioned shell game (and, no, I didn't write any part of this Wikipedia article).

Effect of the act on government revenue and spending

The legislation itself notes that "The Joint Committee on Taxation has certified that a tax trust fund, providing for conscientious objector taxpayers to pay their full taxes for non-military purposes, would increase Federal revenues."[4] This presumably because some war tax resisters would return to paying taxes.

There would be some additional cost in implementing and accounting for such a distinct fund and in providing mechanisms for taxpayers to use it.

The act would not directly reduce either the amount of money the federal government spends on the military nor the percentage of the federal budget that goes to military spending. The National Priorities Project, using a similar definition of "military purpose" as is in this bill, estimates that “[m]ilitary spending consumes 26 cents out of every individual income tax dollar. It makes up about 20% of total federal spending and over half of the discretionary budget.”

The bill would only directly affect the amount of military spending if the general fund were to become smaller than the amount to be spent on the military. If that were to happen, the government would either have to borrow money to make up the difference, illegally dip into the Peace Tax Fund, or reduce military spending.

How many people would have to become conscientious objectors to military taxation for this to happen? If, for simplicity’s sake, we assume that likely conscientious objectors to military taxation currently pay on average about the same amount of taxes as everyone else, in order to make any reduction to the 26% of every tax dollar that is spent for military purposes, more than 74% of taxpayers would have to declare themselves conscientious objectors.

Remember, too, that the bill has a historically pretty restrictive definition of a CO:

Designated Conscientious Objector- For purposes of this Act, the term 'designated conscientious objector' means a taxpayer who is opposed to participation in war in any form based upon the taxpayer's deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or training (within the meaning of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 450 et seq. [the specific section is 456(j)])), and who has certified these beliefs in writing to the Secretary of the Treasury in such form and manner as the Secretary provides.

Labels: critical thinking, money, Peace Tax Fund Bill, politics, resistance, United States, war tax resistance