U.S. Taxpayers Will Face Burden of Syria

Last updated on September 3, 2013

President Obama wants the U.S. to intervene in Syria on humanitarian grounds, but are U.S. taxpayers happy to oblige? It was the end of 2012 when the Obama administration was desperately looking for a way to avoid the fiscal cliff. Now, they want to spend billions in defense of another country. There would be a drastic increase in government spending if the U.S. intervenes in Syria. The burden of it would be put on American taxpayers.

The impact of the recession was felt deeply by taxpayers. Now that the economy is getting stronger, burdening taxpayers with additional costs that could be easily avoided is not fair.

As the U.S. has no defense treaty with Syria, anything spent on Syria will not come back to the United States. The big question is: are American taxpayers willing to let their government use their money to help Syria or would they prefer to use that money to help with the American economy?

The Constitutions sets a limit to what American taxpayers can be taxed for: “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” According to the Constitution, the first right of every citizen is to help his/her own country before it helps others. Pushing U.S. taxpayers to “help” at a time when the economy has just recovered could be considered unjust.