Address Unchecked War Profiteering with the Establishment of Conscientious Objector Status on Tax Returns, an Excess Profits Tax, and a United States Department of Peace

Peace
, , ,
1

Policy Proposal: Address Unchecked War Profiteering with the Establishment of Conscientious Objector Status on Tax Returns, an Excess Profits Tax, and a United States Department of Peace

Executive Summary:

This proposal advocates for the establishment of a U.S. Department of Peace to combat war profiteering, ensure ethical use of tax dollars, and integrate peace as a fundamental aspect of national security strategy. Key initiatives include:

  • A Conscientious Objector status for tax returns, allowing individuals to direct their contributions ethically.

  • An Excess Profits Tax to prevent excessive gains from conflict and promote equitable wealth distribution.

  • The creation of a Department of Peace to work in tandem with the Department of Defense, emphasizing conflict prevention, diplomacy, and peacebuilding.

By revisiting historical precedents and critiquing legislative shortcomings, this initiative offers a strategic framework for implementation, emphasizing the need for a systemic shift in U.S. policy to recognize that true security encompasses both peace and defense.

Introduction:

The Department of Peace aims to institutionalize peace-building efforts, establishing itself as a complementary arm to the Department of Defense. This new entity would provide a necessary counterbalance to military-centric policies, drawing on historical lessons and tackling modern legislative and ethical governance issues. By placing peace initiatives on equal footing in policy-making, the Department seeks to cultivate a culture of peace both domestically and internationally, enhancing national security through a balanced approach where peace and defense are seen as integral and synergistic. This strategy recognizes the critical need to shift our national culture towards one that values the prevention of conflict as much as the capacity to respond to it, ensuring a more homeostatic environment for collective survival.

Statement of Need/Problem:

  • War Profiteering and Ethical Tax Allocation:
    The absence of a robust policy framework, like the excess profits tax employed during the World Wars, has enabled unchecked profiteering in contemporary conflicts. This situation has not only emboldened corporate interests but has also allowed for the perpetuation of military engagements for profit rather than defense. Recent conflicts, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan, have demonstrated how defense contractors can amass significant gains from prolonged warfare, often with little accountability for fraud or overcharging, as evidenced by cases documented by organizations like CorpWatch.
    This profit motive has potentially influenced U.S. foreign policy to favor military solutions over diplomacy, leading to an aggressor stance rather than one of defense, contrasting with the condemnation of similar actions by other nations, like Russia in Ukraine. The U.S.'s repeated military engagements post-WWII, without facing equivalent international scrutiny, alongside the lack of accountability for actions that international tribunals have labeled as war crimes (e.g., the findings against former U.S. officials in Japan and Malaysia), underscores the need for systemic change.
    An excess profits tax, if structured to significantly deter the profit motive from war, must be reconsidered, not merely as a revenue tool but as a means to realign national priorities towards peace and ethical governance. This would ensure that military actions are truly defensive and last-resort measures rather than opportunities for corporate gain.

  • Legislative Shortcomings:
    The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), while established in 1984 for peace education, has failed to influence policy directly, address abuses of power, or curb war profiteering19.

  • Executive Overreach: Erosion of the Bill of Rights through Executive Overreach:
    Legislation such as the NDAA, PATRIOT Act, and the War Powers Act have been critiqued as flagrant measures eroding the Bill of Rights by allowing for:

    • Indefinite Detention without Trial: The NDAA has provisions potentially allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, raising significant due process concerns under the Bill of Rights17.
    • Expanded Surveillance: The PATRIOT Act facilitates broad surveillance capabilities, which could infringe upon Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures1316171895.
    • Bypassing Congressional Oversight: The War Powers Act, while intended to check presidential power, has in practice enabled prolonged military engagements without a formal declaration of war or significant legislative oversight, undermining the constitutional balance of powers20.

These acts collectively contribute to a scenario where executive authority in military and security matters has expanded, often with little accountability, thereby weakening the checks and balances that are fundamental to the U.S. political system and the rights of citizens.

  • Public Conscience:
    The failure to legislate a peace tax fund has left conscientious objectors unable to redirect their tax contributions away from military spending, contravening rights under the ICCPR1.

Goals/Objectives:

  • Ethical Use of Tax Dollars:
    Facilitate mechanisms like a peace tax fund for those morally opposed to military spending, ensuring funds are used ethically and in alignment with fundamental human rights.

  • Moral Objection to War Funding:
    Just as the government has allowed individuals to serve in non-combatant roles or perform alternative civilian service during wartime, there exists a compelling argument for extending similar considerations to those who object to their tax contributions funding war efforts, especially when those efforts fund actions deemed as war crimes or crimes against humanity.

  • Parallels in Ethical Stance: The ethical stance of not wanting to be complicit in warfare through direct participation can logically extend to not wishing to finance such activities. This is particularly poignant when funds are used in ways that lead to or support human rights violations.

  • Legal and Moral Precedent: The principle of conscientious objection is rooted in the recognition of freedom of conscience and religious liberty, rights enshrined in the First Amendment. Extending this to taxation for war could:

    • Promote True Freedom of Conscience: Allow citizens to live according to their deepest-held beliefs without being forced to indirectly participate in actions they morally oppose.

    • Set a Precedent for Accountability: By linking tax payment to specific governmental actions, it could encourage greater scrutiny and accountability over how national defense budgets are spent, potentially deterring support for regimes or actions deemed unethical by international standards.

    • Encourage Peaceful Alternatives: If taxpayers could designate their contributions towards peace-building through the Department of Peace, or non-military aid, this might incentivize more peaceful resolutions to conflicts.

Background/Historical Context:

  • Excess Profits Tax:
    During the World Wars, the U.S. implemented an excess profits tax to address the economic disparity exacerbated by wartime industries. This tax was designed to:

    • Redistribute Wealth: By taxing the extraordinary profits made by companies directly benefiting from war, it aimed to redistribute wealth and ensure that the financial burden of war was more equitably shared among the populace17.

    • Curb Exploitation: It sought to prevent companies from exploiting wartime conditions for undue financial gain, encouraging a more ethical approach to business during national crises. This measure was meant to deter profiteering and ensure that the economic benefits of war did not disproportionately favor a few while the nation was engaged in conflict.

    • Historical Precedents:

      • World War I: The 65th Congress enacted the Special Preparedness Fund Act in 1917, with amendments following in 1918. This legislation introduced a graduated tax from 20% to 60% on profits exceeding prewar earnings but not less than 7% or more than 9% of invested capital, aimed at siphoning off war-induced profits.

      • World War II: The U.S. saw the introduction of multiple statutes by the 76th, 77th, and 79th Congresses between 1940 and 1945. These laws were crafted to tax wartime profits, with rates varying from 25% to 50%. The system allowed businesses to choose between an “average earnings” method or an “invested capital” method to calculate what was considered excess profit. However, despite its initial intent, the tax was repealed in 1946, marking a return to less regulated profit-making during times of war.

    • Post-War Abandonment: Post-WWII, this fiscal policy has been largely abandoned, allowing for a modern landscape where military engagements can lead to significant corporate profits without similar checks, contributing to the current narrative of unchecked war profiteering.

  • Eisenhower’s Warning:
    In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously cautioned the nation about:

    • The Military-Industrial Complex: He expressed concern over the potential for the “unwarranted influence” of the military establishment and arms industry on government policy, a dynamic that could lead to unnecessary wars driven by economic interests rather than national defense needs19.

    • Public Awareness: Eisenhower urged citizens to remain vigilant to ensure that the development of military capabilities did not overshadow other national priorities or distort policy for profit.

    • Enduring Relevance: His warning remains pertinent as defense spending continues to grow, often with little transparency or public debate about its necessity or ethical implications.

Watch Eisenhower’s full speech on the Military-Industrial Complex here:

  • Smedley Butler’s Critique:
    General Smedley D. Butler, a highly decorated Marine, provided one of the earliest and most vocal criticisms of military interventionism and corporate influence:
    • Corporate Gain: In his book “War is a Racket,” Butler argued that wars are often engineered for the benefit of a few corporations, turning the military into a tool for economic imperialism rather than national defense5.
    • Revealing the Business Plot: He exposed an alleged plot by business leaders to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install a fascist government that would favor business interests over democratic principles, further illustrating the alignment of military actions with corporate agendas.
    • Legacy: His critique has become a foundational narrative for those who argue that the U.S. military has been used more for the benefit of business than for the security of the nation, influencing discussions on peace and the ethical use of military power.

Listen to War is a Racket here:

  • Visualing the Human Cost of War:
    To grasp the enormity of human loss due to war, Neil Halloran’s visualization “The Fallen of World War II” provides an unmatched perspective. It not only quantifies the casualties in both military and civilian lives but also personalizes the statistics in a way that words alone cannot:
    Watch “The Fallen of World War II” here:
  • Understanding Nuclear Threats:
    Ben Cohen’s “Ben’s BBs” brings the discussion of nuclear proliferation and capability into sharp focus, using a simple yet profound method to demonstrate the scale of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in comparison to historical use:

Watch “Ben’s BBs” here:

  • Global Context: It’s important to note that while “Ben’s BBs” focuses on the U.S., the global nuclear threat is compounded by arsenals in Russia, China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. The total nuclear stockpile worldwide remains a significant concern, far exceeding what’s shown in the video.

  • World Court Opinion: In light of the threat of the use of force concerning nuclear weapons, the International Court of Justice (World Court) issued an advisory opinion, with a unanimous ruling including the participation of a U.S. judge, that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. Despite this, South Africa remains the only country to have fully dismantled its nuclear arsenal, illustrating a critical failure in global leadership and compliance with international law. This underscores the urgent need for the United States to lead by example in disarmament efforts, advocating for a world where such weapons no longer pose a threat.

  • Recognition of Conscientious Objectors:
    Historically, the U.S. government has recognized the right of individuals to object to military service on grounds of conscience. This acknowledgment dates back to the Civil War, with formal provisions for conscientious objectors being solidified during World War I and expanded thereafter. This recognition respects the moral or religious convictions of individuals who oppose participation in war in any form. But this recognition historically has only applied to military conscription, but not the misappropriation of tax dollars from American citizens of conscience, thereby violating their 1st Amendment right.

Together, these elements form a historical backdrop that critiques the intertwining of economic interests with military policy, highlighting a pressing need for mechanisms like the proposed Department of Peace. From the lessons of past wars, the warnings of influential figures like Eisenhower and Butler, to the stark visualizations of human tragedy and nuclear proliferation, we are reminded of the dire consequences of unchecked military and corporate power. The failure to heed the World Court’s call for nuclear disarmament, with the U.S. owning one of the largest nuclear arsenals, underlines the necessity for America to lead by example in promoting peace, ethical governance, and disarmament. This historical context not only justifies but demands the establishment of a Department of Peace to address these long-standing issues, ensuring that future policies align with the ethical and moral imperatives of our time.

Legislative History:

Over the span of more than 50 years, the American public’s call for peace and ethical governance has been consistently voiced through the introduction of various peace-oriented bills in Congress. However, these legislative efforts have largely been ignored, and tabled without due consideration for passage or implementation:

  • 1972 - 92nd Congress: H.R.14082 - World Peace Tax Fund Bill - Introduced to allow taxpayers to direct their tax contributions towards peace rather than military spending, it reflects early public demand for an ethical allocation of funds.

  • 1984 - 98th Congress: S.2729 - United States Institute of Peace Act - A step towards peace education, yet this bill’s passage did little to curb militarism or ensure accountability in defense spending.

  • 1992 - 102nd Congress: H.R.5075 - Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act - Another attempt to respect conscientious objection in taxation, highlighting the persistent demand for such provisions.

  • 1995 - 104th Congress: H.R.422 - International Peace and Security Assistance Act - Aimed at bolstering peace efforts internationally, but it failed to gain traction.

  • 2001 - 107th Congress: H.R.2459 - Department of Peace - Directly proposed a new department to prioritize peace, yet was sidelined.

  • 2005 - 109th Congress: S.1756 - Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act - Similar in intent to the 2001 bill, it too was not advanced.

  • 2008 - 110th Congress: H.R.1921 - Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act - A recurring theme, again showing public interest in ethical taxation.

  • 2013 - 113th Congress: H.R.808 - Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2013 - Despite the growing need for peace initiatives, this bill did not progress.

  • 2019 - 116th Congress: H.R.1111 - Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2019 - Continued efforts to institutionalize peace, but met with congressional inertia.

  • 2021 - 117th Congress: H.R.1111 - Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2021; H.R.4529 - Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act - These recent bills underscore a persistent public will for change, yet they have not led to actionable policy changes.

  • 2022 - 117th Congress: H.R.2617 - Performance Enhancement Reform Act - Aimed at enhancing government performance, including in peace initiatives, but still, it did not address the root issues of military spending and oversight.

  • 2023 - 118th Congress: H.R.1111 - Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2023 - The latest in a long line of peace proposals, indicative of a continuous push for peace without corresponding legislative action.

This pattern of introduction without enactment illustrates Congress’s repeated failure to heed public demand for peace over militarism. The lack of action has contributed significantly to the national deficit, which has ballooned into the trillions, largely due to unchecked military expenditure. This fiscal irresponsibility is exacerbated by the absence of budget oversight and the Department of Defense never having undergone a full audit, thereby allowing for the prioritization of globalist interests over domestic security and welfare, exhausting national resources, and effectively ransacking the treasury for purposes that do not align with American values or security needs.

Failing to pass acts that honor Americans’ rights to religious freedom under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly the right not to have their taxes misappropriated to fund human rights violations abroad, represents a significant dereliction of duty. For over fifty years, this issue has been ignored by Congress, despite the explicit oath taken by representatives to uphold the Constitution and, by extension, the international treaties it supports. This failure not only undermines the moral and ethical stance of the United States but also contravenes the obligations our nation has committed to under international law.1

Proposed Solution:

Case for a Department of Peace:

  • Addressing Historical and Legislative Gaps:

    • War Profiteering Prevention: Propose the reintroduction of an excess profits tax tailored to modern economic conditions, where profits from military engagements are subject to a progressive tax rate, with rates escalating based on the excessiveness of profits relative to peacetime averages.
    • Counterbalance to the Military-Industrial Complex: Establish the Department of Peace to ensure that peace initiatives are not only discussed but actively influence policy, potentially through mandatory peace impact assessments for military actions.

  • Strategic Framing:

    • Reframe Peace as Security:
      • Develop a narrative where peace is seen as the foundation of security, emphasizing how peacebuilding can prevent conflicts, thus reducing the need for military intervention. This involves integrating peace education into national security discourse.
    • Economic and Moral Imperative:
      • Quantify the economic benefits of peace, such as savings from not engaging in continuous warfare, and the moral argument against the human cost of war. Highlight how peace can lead to development and stability, fostering both domestic and international prosperity.

Implementation Strategy:

  • Legislative Advocacy:

    • Drafting and Promoting Legislation: Revise or draft bills like H.R.1111, incorporating:
      • Provisions for ethical defense spending, ensuring transparency and accountability in military contracts.
      • Mechanisms for conscientious objection in taxation, allowing citizens to direct their tax contributions towards peace initiatives or non-military aid.
    • Bipartisan Support:
      • Engage with legislators across the political spectrum by framing peace initiatives in terms that resonate with their values - fiscal responsibility for conservatives, human rights and ethical governance for progressives, and national security for moderates.

  • Public Engagement:

    • Educational Campaigns:

      • Launch multi-platform campaigns using media like “The Fallen of World War II” to illustrate the human costs of war. Use these to educate on the tangible benefits of peace over war, including cost savings, lives preserved, and community development.

    • Historical Lessons:

      • Organize events or series where historians, veterans, and peace activists can discuss past lessons from wars, focusing on how peace strategies could have altered historical outcomes.

    • Grassroots Movements:

      • Mobilize community groups, schools, and universities to host discussions, film screenings, or debates on peace versus war, encouraging public discourse that influences policy.

    • Coalition Building:

      • Strategic Engagement:
        The establishment of a Department of Peace necessitates a broad coalition of organizations spanning various sectors, from veterans’ groups to religious and human rights entities. By engaging these organizations, we can harness their collective expertise, grassroots networks, and moral authority to advocate for peace-oriented policies. These partnerships will not only amplify our message but also facilitate the implementation of peace initiatives through shared resources, public campaigns, and policy lobbying. Each organization brings a unique perspective and strength to the table, whether it’s firsthand experience with the consequences of war, a commitment to ethical governance, or a deep understanding of peacebuilding practices. We aim to create a unified front that can effectively push for legislative change, educate the public, and ensure that the Department of Peace reflects a diverse array of American values and aspirations for peace.
List of Peacebuilding Organizations to Partner With

  • Veterans for Peace veteransforpeace.org

    • An organization of military veterans and allies dedicated to promoting peace by educating the public about the costs and consequences of war.

  • World Beyond War worldbeyondwar.org

    • A global grassroots network aimed at ending all wars by advocating for non-violent solutions to conflicts and educating people on alternatives to militarism.

  • Peace Alliance peacealliance.org

    • Focuses on fostering a culture of peace through education, advocacy, and community-building activities, with an emphasis on peace education in schools.

  • Unitarian Universalist Association uua.org

    • A religious organization that among other values, promotes peace, justice, and respect for the interdependent web of all existence, often engaging in peace advocacy.

  • Amnesty International USA amnestyusa.org

    • Works to protect human rights globally, including campaigns against war crimes, advocating for peace, and opposing violence and conflict.

  • American Friends Service Committee afsc.org

    • A Quaker organization that promotes lasting peace with justice, through programs addressing issues like militarism, economic injustice, and human rights abuses.

  • Quakers (Friends Committee on National Legislation) fcnl.org

    • Lobbies for peace, justice, and environmental stewardship, guided by Quaker beliefs, focusing on influencing U.S. legislation towards these ends.

  • Global Peace Foundation globalpeace.org

    • Works on building sustainable peace by promoting interfaith cooperation, youth development, and community peacebuilding initiatives.

  • International Peace Institute ipinst.org

    • A think tank that researches and develops policy recommendations on international peace and security issues, engaging with the UN and other international bodies.

  • Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) wilpf.org

    • Advocates for peace, human rights, and social justice with a feminist perspective, focusing on disarmament, ending militarism, and promoting women’s roles in peace processes.

  • Nonviolent Peaceforce nonviolentpeaceforce.org

    • Deploys unarmed civilian peacekeepers to prevent violence, protect human rights, and support local peacebuilding efforts in conflict zones.

  • US Institute of Peace (acknowledging its limitations) usip.org

    • A federal institution that works on conflict management and peacebuilding, although often critiqued for its ties to U.S. foreign policy.

  • Pax Christi USA paxchristiusa.org

    • A Catholic peace movement advocating for disarmament, human rights, and nonviolent solutions to conflict.

  • Jewish Peace Fellowship jewishpeacefellowship.org

    • Promotes peace and justice issues from a Jewish perspective, including opposition to war and advocacy for nonviolence.

  • Muslim Peace Fellowship muslimpeacemovement.org

    • Works to promote peace, justice, and reconciliation within Islamic communities and beyond, focusing on nonviolent conflict resolution.

  • Catholic Peacebuilding Network cpn.nd.edu

    • A network for sharing and developing resources for peacebuilding from Catholic perspectives, connected with the University of Notre Dame.

  • Transcend International transcend.org

    • Inspired by Johan Galtung’s work, this network promotes the theory and practice of peace through conflict transformation.

  • Carter Center cartercenter.org

    • Engages in peace programs, conflict resolution, and human rights monitoring, often with a focus on election observation and mediation.

  • Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies kroc.nd.edu

    • Conducts research and education in peace studies, with a focus on understanding and preventing violent conflict.

  • The Conflict Resolution Center International crcintl.org

    • Offers training and consultancy services aimed at resolving conflicts and fostering peace through mediation and dialogue.

  • Ploughshares Fund ploughshares.org

    • A public foundation that funds initiatives to build a safer, more peaceful world, particularly focusing on nuclear disarmament.

  • The Global Fund for Children globalfundforchildren.org

    • Supports grassroots organizations that focus on protecting children from violence, including efforts in peacebuilding and conflict resolution.

  • Seeds of Peace seedsofpeace.org

    • An organization that brings together young leaders from regions of conflict for dialogue, aiming to foster peace and mutual understanding.

  • The Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University emu.edu/cjp

    • Offers education and training in peacebuilding, conflict transformation, and restorative justice.

  • Peace Brigades International peacebrigades.org

    • Provides protective accompaniment to human rights defenders, activists, and communities in conflict zones to prevent violence against them.

Impact Assessment:

  • Ethical Governance:

    • By establishing the Department of Peace, we aim to ensure that all military actions and funding decisions are scrutinized for alignment with both international human rights laws and national ethical standards. This would involve:
      • Human Rights Compliance: Monitoring U.S. military involvement to prevent violations and to promote accountability.
      • Ethical Allocation: Directing funds from military to peace initiatives, ensuring taxpayer dollars support ethical governance.

  • Policy Influence:

    • The Department would be instrumental in redefining U.S. policy approaches to include peacebuilding as a core strategy, not just an adjunct to military action. This includes:
      • Legislative Influence: Pushing for laws that prioritize diplomacy, conflict resolution, and peace education.
      • Strategic Implementation: Integrating peace strategies into national security doctrines, affecting how conflicts are approached at both domestic and international levels.

Feasibility and Challenges:

  • Political Resistance:

    • Navigating Opposition: There will be significant pushback from those who benefit economically or politically from military spending. Strategies to overcome this include:
      • Building a diverse coalition to demonstrate widespread support.
      • Highlighting the economic benefits of peace over war to appeal to fiscal conservatives.
      • Leveraging public opinion through education and advocacy campaigns.

  • Cultural Shift:

    • Promoting Peace: Encouraging a cultural shift towards valuing peace requires:
      • Education and Awareness: Increasing public understanding of peace as security through schools, media, and community programs.
      • National Identity: Crafting narratives where peace and strength are not mutually exclusive but complementary, fostering a national identity that embraces peace as part of American values.
      • Celebration of Peace Achievements: Just as military victories are celebrated, peacebuilding successes should be highlighted to change cultural perceptions.

Conclusion:

The proposal for a United States Department of Peace does not seek to undermine our military’s defensive capabilities but aims to bolster national security through a strategic focus on peacekeeping and conflict prevention. This initiative is crafted to:

  • Fulfill Historical Calls for Ethical Governance: By responding to the long-standing demands for accountability, transparency, and ethical considerations in military and fiscal policies, it pays homage to the warnings and insights of leaders like Eisenhower and Smedley Butler. Their cautions on the military-industrial complex highlight the need for a system that does not profit from war.

  • Rectify Legislative Oversights: Where the United States Institute of Peace has been limited to educational roles, this Department would step in to directly shape policy, ensuring peace has a voice in legislative decisions, correcting past imbalances.

  • Support Conscientious Objectors: Acknowledging the moral objections to military spending, the Department would introduce mechanisms for ethical tax allocation, respecting individual consciences and promoting a fiscal policy aligned with democratic values.

  • Serve as an Ethical Framework for Peace: This would not mean a reduction in military readiness but rather an enhancement through ethical peacekeeping strategies, favoring diplomacy and non-violent solutions as primary responses to conflict.

  • Leverage Veterans’ Wisdom: Veterans, with their firsthand knowledge of war’s true cost, would inform policy, ensuring it reflects the realities of conflict on human lives and society. Their advocacy for peace could steer us away from unnecessary engagements.

  • Address Defense Contracting Issues: With a focus on transparency and accountability, the Department would challenge the practices of no-bid contracts, tackling the fraud often linked to defense contractors and safeguarding taxpayer investments.

In essence, establishing a Department of Peace would mark a pivotal shift in U.S. policy, fostering a balanced perspective where peace and defense work in tandem for both national and international stability. This initiative would not only push forward peace as a strategic goal but also reinforce the Bill of Rights by ensuring that government actions remain transparent, accountable, and democratic, thus aligning with the ethical and moral fabric of our nation.

Appendices:

Resources:

  • Websites:

    • National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund - Seeking a remedy for the constitutional rights of people of conscience concerning income taxation for war and other military purposes. Our opposition to having our income taxes used for the waging of war in all forms is contrary to our deeply held moral beliefs and is in fact a constitutional First Amendment issue.
    • Peace Alliance - For education and advocacy on peace legislation.
      -World Beyond War - A global movement to end all wars.
      -US Institute of Peace - Despite its educational focus, provides resources on peacebuilding.
      -Amnesty International USA - For human rights analysis related to military engagements.
      -United Nations Peacekeeping - International peace efforts and resources.
      -Human Rights Watch - Reports on the ethical implications of military spending and arms trade.

  • Reports and Studies:

    • Economic Analysis on the Costs of War vs. Peace Initiatives:
      • “The Economic Value of Peace 2018” by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) provides a comprehensive analysis of how peace contributes to global economic health, contrasting the high costs associated with violence and conflict.
      • The Watson Institute’s “Costs of War Project” at Brown University quantifies the financial toll of post-9/11 military engagements, highlighting the economic benefits of redirecting funds towards peace initiatives.
      • Zachary D. Carter’s “The Price of Peace” explores economic policies post-war through the lens of John Maynard Keynes, offering insights into how peace can drive economic development.
    • Studies on Ethical Governance and Military Spending:
      • “Ethical Dimensions of the Defense Industry” by CIMSEC delves into the moral complexities of military procurement, presenting a case for ethical considerations in defense policy.
      • The University of California, Berkeley’s Military-Industrial Complex Seminar Series examines the economic and ethical impacts of defense spending on national governance.
      • “The Moral Dimensions of Asymmetric Warfare” by Shannon E. French in the Naval War College Review discusses the ethical implications of military actions, which can be extended to critique current military spending practices.
    • Auditing the Department of Defense:
      • The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has labeled the Department of Defense as a “High-Risk Area,” repeatedly citing the need for auditing due to its financial management issues and lack of transparency21.
      • Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis (retired), in his piece “The Defense Department’s Broken Business Model,” argues for the necessity of audits to enhance efficiency and accountability within the DoD, emphasizing the views of military personnel who have seen firsthand the effects of unaccounted military spending22.
      • Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has publicly supported the need for fiscal responsibility in defense, through speeches and writings, indicating support for comprehensive audits to ensure resources are used effectively23.

  • Books

    • “Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy - Exposes the transnational psychological warfare operation camouflaged by “Covid-19, Identifies World War III bad actors seeking to replace liberal democracy with totalitarian technocracy, and Explores the potential for evil of weaponized neurotechnology
    • Butler, Smedley D. - “War is a Racket.”
    • Pinker, Steven - “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.”
    • Grossman, Dave - “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society.”
    • Chenoweth, Erica and Stephan, Maria J. - “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.”
    • Jeong, Ho-Won - “Peace and Conflict Studies.”

  • Legal Framework:

    • U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
    • ICCPR, Article 18.
    • United Nations Charter
      • Article 1: The Purposes of the United Nations are:
        1. To maintain international peace and security, and… to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace…suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and…justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes…
        2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples, and to take…measures to strengthen universal peace;
        3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and…respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion

Footnotes

[1]: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18 on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

[5]: Butler, Smedley D. “War is a Racket.”

[9]: Wikipedia - Patriot Act.

[13]: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - Analysis on PATRIOT Act.

[16]: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - Surveillance Under the USA/PATRIOT Act.

[17]: EPIC - USA Patriot Act.

[18]: Justice Department - USA PATRIOT Act.

[19]: Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation, 1961.

[20]: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 on the power to declare war.

[21]: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on DoD financial management.

[22]: Davis, Lt. Col. Daniel L. “The Defense Department’s Broken Business Model,” Military.com.

[23]: Speeches and writings of Admiral Mike Mullen.

Out of Votes? Answer this Poll!

  • 100% Agree
  • Mostly agree, but with reservations
  • Half agree/disagree
  • Mostly disagree, but agree with some of this
  • 100% Disagree
0 voters

If you disagree with this proposal or have reservations, explain your reasoning and what should be changed where, and why. This will help to refine the proposal for a greater consensus.

7 Likes
2

This is an interesting idea. I’d be curious to see the results if it were implemented.

2 Likes
3

Thank you @jbschirtzinger

I’m looking forward to collaborating with those who have more legal expertise, veterans with wartime experience, and legislators, to refine this to be a decided improvement on the failed bills of the past. I do believe the American people would welcome this new policy as it would indeed help shift the entire trajectory of the world and bring our country’s reputation back to the beacon it once was. The policies that have been implemented by the corrupted institutions have manifested a much more frightening and dystopian era with an even more horrible future inevitability if we do not address this now.

2 Likes
4

It could act as a check and balance on the Dept. of War which might justify its existence all on its own.

3 Likes
5

This is what I was thinking. This proposal strikes me as a potential ‘checks and balances’ for the DOD and such.

I would support this, yet I believe that all government agencies should function on sunset clauses. A ‘DOP’ would need to set a precise goal for itself, a clear path, and ending with returning oversight to the core branches of federal government, and the Several States.

The solve we need is an end to the war industrial complex, not a management of the continuation of such.

I agree with your proposal, granted that in the future government agencies are charted for a specific amount of time. Less centralization > More centralization.

Edit: Granted that the DOD eventually functions under a sunset clause. The Commander and Chief should be in charge of piece-time defense. The only reason I support a standing army is due to strategic air/nuclear warfare.

3 Likes
6

This is genius.

2 Likes
7

:grinning:

1 Like
8

It’s definitely a half-step on that road.

1 Like
9

There’s the added danger now of the pharmaceutical industry exploiting bioweapons research for financial gain as evidenced by the new “Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (P-ABS)" agreement between big pharma and the WHO, giving them 20% of the profits from the therapeutics they then sell as a remedy for their lab produced chimeras. So as far as threats go, it’s not just nuclear warfare we have to worry about and have a strong deterrence against. The consequences of the 1986 act that originally shielded this industry from litigation for harms caused is far more disastrous than many realize. The greedy see a proverbial golden cash cow and the advent of this clear and present danger endangers us all. So, both departments are necessary for the foreseeable future.

1 Like
10

Extremely true. globalist organizations like the WHO and multi-national business (including big pharma) are industries/organizations that need checks and balances. I see now how a ‘peace dept.’ could have more uses.

Your many points for the need for a multi-faceted ‘peace dept.’ which manage any given organization that could be included in the exploitation of the health of our citizens and state of world, in terms of conflict.

The only issue I could see now being US agency involvement abroad, yet that has nothing to do with the agency itself but who the agency adheres to. Government agencies should take direction straight from Congress or the President, not from other government agencies or central non-profit agencies.

Granted, my mind was only thinking about conventional warfare. Sometime I forget about biological warfare, grave mistake. Have my vote.

11

Honestly this in an of itself can be it’s own experimental policy/proposal.

Being able to decide where your taxes go. This would be the perfect way for citizens to avoid misrepresentation by their representatives by forcing them to fund EXACTLY the programs and causes that their constituents want funded.

Say a governor wants to fund illegal immigration into their state but the citizens elect not to? Then they have to find private funding for it, etc.

1 Like
12

Something along these lines maybe?

1 Like
13

@Nicole_C_Scott kudos for the extravagantly detailed post! One of the challenges with the good idea posted here is the context of our suggestions for the federal government—the world’s largest bureaucracy.

The promotion of peace initiatives as a federal government institution seems destined to ruin them. Other means to advance your ideas?

14

Yes, your observation is rather astute @Marcosrodriguez , as one’s idealism as for how things should be isn’t necessarily aligned with the reality of what can be given the nature of the present problem being so unchecked by the legislative branch for so long. I see it as a grievous dereliction of duty, and there’s been a long string of usurpations to grow the enormous “elephant in the room” to the size it presently is. I’m open to suggestions as to advance this position, as I firmly belive in the maxim, “Where there’s a Will, there’s a Way.”

2 Likes
16

Agree.