Many years ago, back when people actually bought records, a wise man once sang the lyrics: "You don't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free." Now granted, that "wise man" might have been Geddy Lee of Rush... but do you really think Geddy Lee is any less wise than most of the people in Congress?

Following on this theme, Rep. David Obey (D-Wisconsin) has introduced a bill into the House of Representatives that would create what he called a "war surtax" as a means to pay for President Obama's recently announced military surge in Afghanistan.

H.R. 4130, otherwise known as the Share the Sacrifice Act, is based says Obey "on the principle that if the President and the nation decide that the war in Afghanistan is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for." The tax, which wouldn't go into effect until 2011, would be a 1% surtax applied to taxes paid in a single year by households making over $150,000. For instance, those whose federal income taxes came out to $22,600 would now pay an additional $226 to help fund the war effort.

According to White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, the cost of sending 40,000 additional troops into Afghanistan could reach about $40 billion, a price tag that Obey says will "destroy the other things we are trying to do in our economy."

Obey, who is Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, told CBS News that "whatever the cost of the war is would be paid for through that tax. Because if we don't do that, the war will bleed every dollar in the budget away from any other initiative and it will block us from making the investments we need to make in our own economy."

While Obey seems to be set on the idea of someone, anyone, actually footing the bill for this adventure, he seems to be meeting some opposition from inside his own party. Talking about the surge on CBS' "Face the Nation" last week, Michigan Senator Carl Levin made it clear that the time for a tax hike has come and gone.

"There should have been, as far as I'm concerned, tax increases for upper bracket folks who did so well during the Bush years — that's where tax increases should have taken place. But that should have happened some time ago," Levin said. "In the middle of this recession, I don't think you're going to be able successfully or fairly to add a tax burden to middle-income people... I don't think middle income America is in a position now where they could pay additional taxes because the economic stress is so great here."

The idea of regular Americans reaching into their own pockets to help fund a war isn't anything new. Over a century ago President William McKinley implemented a war tax to help William Randolph Hearst sell a bunch of newspapers, oh sorry, to help fund the Spanish-American War. During World War II millions of regular Americans pitched in by purchasing war bonds, an idea Senator Ben Nelson (and his hair) thinks could still be a viable option today.

"The fact that we had bonds, war bonds, and people invested in their country in that fashion made a lot of sense back then. I don't know why it might not make sense today, certainly in lieu of jumping to tax," Nelson told CBS. Fellow moderate Joe Liberman agreed with Nelson but didn't put the kibosh on Obey's proposal either. "I think [war bonds are a] great idea," he told NBC. "But I think we shouldn't shrink from a war tax in which everybody is asked to contribute a little bit to this effort."

Ultimately this is still a country, even in the wake of all the bailouts and foreclosures and Madoffs, where people love nothing more than the idea of getting something for nothing. Be it a brand new house, or a war half a world away... getting anyone to reach into their pockets, even in the best of economic times, can be a tall order. Give guys like Obey and Nelson credit for pointing out the hard fact that wars actually cost money; just don't actually expect anyone to listen.