As a congresswoman, Tammy Baldwin backed legislation to block funding for body armor and medical supplies for U.S. troops. The Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate co-sponsored legislation in every session of Congress from 2003 until 2009 to allow taxpayers opposed to the military, Department of Defense, and various intelligence agencies to withhold their tax dollars from being spent in support of those entities. Specifically, the legislation allowed individual taxpayers to block funding that would be used for, “the training, supplying, or maintaining of military personnel.” That would include body armor, medical supplies, and other non-offensive equipment.
At least four times Baldwin co-sponsored the legislation, in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. The 2011 version of the bill does not list Baldwin’s name as a co-sponsor. At that time she was possibly contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate.
This should come as a surprise to no one. The only thing surprising to me was your “Wow” comment.
the freedom to deny funding to unofficial wars people do not agree with?
Let’s examine this issue more closely.
“...block funding for body armor and medical supplies for U.S. troops”.
I totally OPPOSE this bill…IF it was the intention to deny ALL taxpayer money for this endeavor. Of course our troops in the field of battle should be given what they need to carry out their mission.
Now, the bill is H.R. 2085: Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act (2009). It states “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 taxpayers 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.”
Baldwin was one of 21 co-sponsors—all (D)‘s except one, that being Ron Paul, a Republican who in truth is a libertarian.
From what I have read, the gist of the bill is to afford conscientious objectors the opportunity to NOT have their tax money be used to fund military activities.
Their status has been clearly established according to past federal laws, and these individuals oppose participation in war in any form based on their moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.
No such provision exists for taxpayers who are conscientious objectors and who seek to NOT be compelled to have their tax dollars for
It seems to me the specific intent of the bill as written is to FURTHER religious causes, i.e. a person who objects to war based on their beliefs.
Perhaps people should do some investigating, because the title of the post to me is clearly misleading. Gee, I wonder why?
So, are people here still opposed to this bill, because it appears to be PROTECTING the rights of individuals who have legitimate reasons to oppose war.
NOT be compelled to have their tax dollars for military purposes.
I’m totally in favor of this bill. So long as I also get to opt out of spending on welfare, medicaid, and any federal agencies I don’t like. That would be nicely libertarian too, right?
a grand Ayn Rand fantasy world.
Perhaps the reasons why Tammy Baldwin blocked have not been explained in the poster’s post.
Perhaps the bill had a bunch of pig pork attached to it, like every goddam bill our lovely elected officials put up, for efficiency and political compromise mind you.
Maybe there was some shitty body armor.
Maybe there was a better bill.
xranger—“So long as I also get to opt out of spending on welfare, medicaid, and any federal agencies I don’t like.”
False equivalency on this poster’s part. This proposal was specifically designed for a particular group. Baldwin SUPPORTS conscientious objectors from having their tax money being used for military purposes. That was the intention of the bill. (D)‘s are seeking, at least in this particular matter, to defend religious liberty.
“False equivalency on this poster’s part”
No its not, I am of a particular group to stop goverment waste.
So why can’t I opt out of things that offend me ? If we are going to allow anyone to start dictating how their tax money is spent then everyone should be allowed. I don’t want to pay for Michelle’s and Pelosis’s goverment jet rides.
Joseph Kexel is the Wisconsin Senatorial candidate for true Conservatives.
Actually reaper I think you are on to something. If you want a way to stop the libs, allow those of us that actually do the heavy lifting to opt out of programs we are steadfastly against. Imagine what would change if all of a sudden the folks that pay the taxes got to decide how the money was spent.
Come to think of it, I have this conversation with my kids periodically. It goes something like this…
5yr old “I want to go to the Dells”
Me “We are saving to go to Disney, pay for the new house etc…”
3yr old “But I want to go swimming”
Me “No, mom is not working as much since Maddie came so we have to set priorities”
Then much whining about how they don’t get to do anything and the 2yr old gets into it because I am a big meanie and it isn’t fair. I am outnumbered in my house and if I ran it like the govt. I would be broke in a week.
The bottom line is (it always comes to the bottom line) that income is finite and spending should be kept in line with that. Govt. works in the other direction where spending comes first and then lets see what we can do to afford it. Blood from a turnip folks.
GCM—“False equivalency on this poster’s part”
Reaper—“No its not, I am of a particular group to stop goverment waste.”***
Fish Addict—“If you want a way to stop the libs, allow those of us that actually do the heavy lifting to opt out of programs we are steadfastly against.”***
So here is the issue—Why cannot citizens be allowed to not have their tax dollars fund something they morally object to if CO’s are given that legal right under this bill?
Because the bill is tailored to a SPECIFIC group of people (CO’s) for a particular action (the funding of war).
CO’s have been recognized by the Supreme Court as being a special class of citizens—they are opposed to war and its related activities because of their religious or moral convictions.
You and I have NOT been conferred that status. Now, we may certainly oppose the use of our tax monies toward programs because of our personal, religious, or moral convictions, but we do not have the LEGAL RIGHT to refuse payment of taxes for programs we find offensive.
The bill seeks to expand the special status of a group of people by enabling them to NOT have their tax dollars fund war and its related activities.
The CO’s situation is UNRELATED to those individuals who oppose having their tax dollars fund programs they personally or morally object to because of the CO’s unique status as stipulated by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, these comments (***) are false equivalencies.
I’m also in favour of this bill, there are many things mentioned in this bill which will help very much to so many guys. Really Its a nice step raised by US government.
Correct gcm. What I am alluding to is what I have said many times in the past. Once the door is open, it is difficult to close again. Against abortion funding? elect a govt that is willing to pass a law removing funding if so stated. Like many libs have said in the past here and elsewhere, you did not build that. the highways are built and kept up with tax money. I want all my taxes to go to the military, roads, and police officers. I do not want to have to pay for public schools, abortion clinics, and bad art. I am thinking I could get a bunch of people together and get special rights conferred on our group. What I find interesting is that COs are most of the time CO when they don’t agree with the war fought. Are they also against the Police? National Guard? Coasties? They all are militaristic orgs that use violence when needed. Would they refuse help from the police when they are getting the tar beaten out of them? How about they wear a sign saying that they object to all violence and will not use violence. A CO who is not willing to die or endanger themself for their cause is nothing more than a coward that enjoys the protection of better men and women than themselves.
Exactly. You should have stopped there. As far as the “you didn’t build that” argument (?), it’s not relevant to the post (nor even true).
“What I find interesting is that COs are most of the time CO when they don’t agree with the war fought. Are they also against the Police? National Guard? Coasties? “
Any evidence to support your assertion? Here, let me educate you on the matter.
You have yet to provide a specific counterargument to the contents of the bill as I outlined—all you have done is grossly mischaracterize it. The bill is about CO’s—whose status has been recognized by the Supreme Court as having a religious objection to war—not having their tax money being used for its related activities.
“A CO who is not willing to die or endanger themself for their cause is nothing more than a coward that enjoys the protection of better men and women than themselves.”
It would appear that you no clue about the history of CO’s. Quakers, Mennonites, and the Amish object to war from the conviction that Christian life is incompatible with military action, because Jesus insists that His followers love their enemies. Seventh-day Adventists did work in hospitals or provided medical assistance rather than take on combat roles. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to participate in the armed services; they believe they should be neutral in conflicts. They cite Isaiah 2:4 which states, “…neither shall they learn war anymore.”
“I am thinking I could get a bunch of people together and get special rights conferred on our group.”
Good luck with that!