Congressman Proposes Bill to Allow You to Opt Out of Funding Wars

[Origanalist]

Where was this guy for the last 8 years?

On April 5th, 2017, Civil Rights figure and Congressman John Lewis (D-GA-5) proposed H.R. 1947, or the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act of 2017. The purpose of this bill is “to affirm the religious freedom of taxpayers who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war, to provide that the income, estate, or gift tax payments of such tax payers be used for nonmilitary purposes, to create the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund to receive such tax payments, to improve revenue collection, and for other purposes.”

This bill ultimately reaffirms the rights of conscientious objectors to war so that they not only are under no obligation to fight wars for the State, but they are also under no obligation to fund such wars. Although this bill is specifically designated as a bill to promote religious freedom, Conscientious Objector is defined as “a taxpayer who is opposed to participation in war in any form based upon the taxpayer’s sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or training.”

If this bill passes, the tax dollars of Conscientious Objectors will not go to the Department of Defense, any member of the intelligence community, parts of the Department of Energy “that have a military purpose,” The Selective Service System, any NASA activities with military purpose, or the “training, supplying, or maintaining of military personnel, or the manufacture, construction, maintenance, or development of military weapons, installations, or strategies.”

In order to ensure this, the bill designates the Secretary of the Treasury to establish an account called the “Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund.” Funds from this account cannot go to purposes designated above.

This is among the best bills I have seen in my lifetime. Along with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s Stop Arming Terrorists Act, this bill is a remarkably good thing a Democrat has done in office. If only they could universalize this principle.

Continued..http://libertyhangout.org/2017/04/5004/

Read bill here..https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...bill/1947/text

[phill4paul]

Kinda like how tax payers don't fund abortions through Planned Parenthood?

[Origanalist]

Kinda like how tax payers don't fund abortions through Planned Parenthood?

Good point, the tax cows could contentedly provide the milk under the allusion they were not funding wars.

[oyarde]

Who wrote this for Lewis ?

[Root]

Kinda like how tax payers don't fund abortions through Planned Parenthood?

+rep

./thread

[nikcers]

military spending isn't wars , and is never "funded".

[asurfaholic]

i like where he is going with the bill. Maybe it doesn't do much in the long run, but gives you a place to register your discontent.

Personally I'd rather it go further, and end penalties for refusing to pay taxes entirely for the same reasons.

[CaptUSA]

I say we fund the entire government like this! Is war abroad any more objectionable than enslaving the American people at home through debt?

With United Way donations you can now designate where you want your money to go. I see no reason why we couldn't do that with taxes. You would instantly see which "programs" Americans really cared about and which ones only serve the interests of politicians.

[RJ Liberty]

I say we fund the entire government like this! Is war abroad any more objectionable than enslaving the American people at home through debt?

With United Way donations you can now designate where you want your money to go. I see no reason why we couldn't do that with taxes. You would instantly see which "programs" Americans really cared about and which ones only serve the interests of politicians.

That'd be pretty awesome.

[timosman]

That'd be pretty awesome.

and short sighted. how long before the congress starts designating spending bills as not-opt-out-able?

[Brian4Liberty]

Eh, just a budget tug of war between the welfare and warfare state.

[jllundqu]

Bull$#@!. Nice idea, but...... bull$#@!.

[juleswin]

The headline portion of the bill looks like another slight of hand to me, but I kinda like this part

If this bill passes, the tax dollars of Conscientious Objectors will not go to the Department of Defense, any member of the intelligence community, parts of the Department of Energy “that have a military purpose,” The Selective Service System, any NASA activities with military purpose, or the “training, supplying, or maintaining of military personnel, or the manufacture, construction, maintenance, or development of military weapons, installations, or strategies.”

Now, if they can remove the religious requirement of it, apply it to all units so it can be pulled anytime the govt is trying to fight another aggressive war. Imagine the military filled with people who are unwilling to fight aggressive wars?

Now that sounds good to me.

[undergroundrr]

The headline portion of the bill looks like another slight of hand to me, but I kinda like this part



Now, if they can remove the religious requirement of it, apply it to all units so it can be pulled anytime the govt is trying to fight another aggressive war. Imagine the military filled with people who are unwilling to fight aggressive wars?

If this bill passes, the tax dollars of Conscientious Objectors will not go to the Department of Defense, any member of the intelligence community, parts of the Department of Energy “that have a military purpose,” The Selective Service System, any NASA activities with military purpose, or the “training, supplying, or maintaining of military personnel, or the manufacture, construction, maintenance, or development of military weapons, installations, or strategies.”

Now that sounds good to me.

I like that part too. As for myself, I support the idea of PDA's in my aerie faerie anarchist utopia, so the sentiment is great. But the above marks this congressman not as an anti-intervnentionist, but as a pie in the sky left-wing pacifist who doesn't believe in the need for a strong national defense. Rand's approach is much more results-oriented and palatable to the war-weary but patriotic type.

[surf]

The Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act of 2017.

i'd much rather support this

[Ender]

How about a law that says taxation w/o representation is illegal?

[A Son of Liberty]

If this bill passes (it won't) it effectively kicks open the door to a fully voluntary federal government. All we need is a sufficiently "conservative" member of congress to propose a similar bill with regard to abortion, and "welfare", and "retirement", etc...

Since this isn't going to happen, I wonder if we couldn't figure out a way to drum up support for a similar but more seemingly innocuous bill that states that taxpayers are not obligated to fund programs that they do not personally support... something along those lines... I love the simplicity of it... kind of a Jeff Goldblum-Windows-97-takes-out-the-aliens type of thing... no nukes, no rioting in the streets, just a simple little bill that somehow gets itself passed that negates the entire state in one fell swoop, that no one seems to notice until its too late, and people start acting upon it...?

[PierzStyx]

Eh, just a budget tug of war between the welfare and warfare state.

Yeah, but warfare is worse than welfare.

[afwjam]

I wish we could piecemeal choose to defund parts of it, we would all be better off in no time.

[opal]

Line item tax spending.. much like line item vetos

opt out of everything or pick what YOU want to pay for as an individual

the road people would pay for roads (chuckle)
the war mongers could pay for wars
the surveillence state people could pay for whatever is left of NSA, CIA, FBI etc
The politicians could pay for a huge shipment of KY for the mass $#@!ing they'd be getting in funding

[enhanced_deficit]

Where was this guy for the last 8 years?

Give the guy a break, during last 8 years there were drone gangstas/war criminals/"ISIS Founders" to be enabled and "MLK supported" wars to be waged.
Besides, we had legit Prez back then. War crimes/money baggers/ISIS supporting lobbies know when to fold and when to rollout their lineup of political slaves.


Suspected War Criminals enabler John Lewis to skip inauguration, says Trump not a 'legitimate' prez


Poll: What do you call a "civil righter" who stands with not one but two war criminals?

Has civil rights movement been tainted for embracing suspected war criminal?






New Obama HS Chief: MLK would love our wars!
A top Pentagon official says the antiwar civil rights leader would support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan




Trump : John Lewis's district in horrible shape, crime infested




















September 5, 2016
Congressional Black Caucus: Deep in the Israel Lobby’s Pocket

[Jamesiv1]

Anybody that wants to pick and choose what your tax money goes to can get the hell out.

[enhanced_deficit]

How about some other Coongressman/woman/person (with bit more credibility than Johnny) introduce a bill that requires wall street to fully finance all future wars?

They is already financing some of the biggest war mongering puppets of theirs... why not pay for all costs of wars as part of a more fair shared responsibility paymemt?




Relational

Obama Years: A Violent Chapter in World History

Barack Obama, Wall Street Co-Conspirator?
http://billmoyers.com/2013/01/31/bar...o-conspirator/

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ecutions-obama

Pastor Wright: Obama a puppet of bankers




Click here to view the original image of 979x603px.

[Madison320]

Yeah, but warfare is worse than welfare.

That depends. True defense is a necessary function of government. Welfare is not. Obviously 90% of what we are doing is not defensive however.

[Madison320]

This is among the best bills I have seen in my lifetime. Along with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s Stop Arming Terrorists Act, this bill is a remarkably good thing a Democrat has done in office. If only they could universalize this principle.

I'm skeptical. My guess is they're also big supporters of locking up or seizing assets of "evil rich people" who don't "pay their fair share".

[Origanalist]

I'm skeptical. My guess is they're also big supporters of locking up or seizing assets of "evil rich people" who don't "pay their fair share".

Being sceptical should always be the default position.

[KrokHead]

Despite the fact Lewis has been in the game forever and this is only being done to spite Trump...

I LIKE IT!

[shakey1]

... but will it fly?

[PierzStyx]

That depends. True defense is a necessary function of government. Welfare is not. Obviously 90% of what we are doing is not defensive however.

I disagree, and so would, I think, the most liberty oriented Founding Fathers. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armies according to the Constitution. But the Constitution does not allow for a standing army. Congress can raise one and fund it, but that in and of itself suggests that there isn't a permanent one which is why one needs to be raised. I would argue that the best constitutional interpretation is that the US could have a reserve army, one composed of trained militia that can be called up quickly to defend the country when invaded but who are otherwise dedicated to civilian life and its pursuits.

My point? Depending on where you split hairs, true defense is not a necessary function of government. The Federal government has no authority to do so, just take over once the war has been declared, and we see today that private military forces are often trained equally as well as or better than government military forces. True defense was seen as being a role of the people.

Considering that the military should only be active when the country is invaded, and then only active in defeating the invader, 100% of everything the US military is doing right now has nothing to do with defense.

[Madison320]

I disagree, and so would, I think, the most liberty oriented Founding Fathers. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armies according to the Constitution. But the Constitution does not allow for a standing army. Congress can raise one and fund it, but that in and of itself suggests that there isn't a permanent one which is why one needs to be raised. I would argue that the best constitutional interpretation is that the US could have a reserve army, one composed of trained militia that can be called up quickly to defend the country when invaded but who are otherwise dedicated to civilian life and its pursuits.

My point? Depending on where you split hairs, true defense is not a necessary function of government. The Federal government has no authority to do so, just take over once the war has been declared, and we see today that private military forces are often trained equally as well as or better than government military forces. True defense was seen as being a role of the people.

Considering that the military should only be active when the country is invaded, and then only active in defeating the invader, 100% of everything the US military is doing right now has nothing to do with defense.

Do you actually think we can call up a temporary army and effectively repel an invasion by a large military power like China?