] PAYING FOR THE WAR: So should we? My own view is that
] we're not spending enough in the war on terror or
] homeland defense. I'm also viscerally opposed to tax
] hikes. But I can't keep having it every which way, if I
] also believe in restraining the debt. I used to think
] that running deficits would itself restrain spending -
] and then we see a Republican president endorsing the
] Medicare expansion after sending the debt through the
] roof. So that theory goes out the window. I don't believe
] in the supply-side notion that cutting taxes boosts
] revenue so much that the cuts pay for themselves
] (although I do think they help stimulate economic
] activity). So what's the responsible thing to do?
] Ideally, I'd propose means-testing social security,
] raising the retirement age, ending agricultural subsidies
] and carving away corporate welfare. But none of that is
] likely to happen any time soon. So I'm gradually moving
] toward the belief that we should propose some kind of
] temporary war-tax. Levy it on those earning more than
] $200,000 and direct it primarily to financing the war on
] terror. Put in a sunset clause of, say, four years. It
] may be time for some fiscal sacrifice for the war we
] desperately need to fight. And we need to fight it
] without creating government insolvency which, in the long
] run, will undermine the war. I don't love this idea; and
] I'm open to other suggestions. But it behooves us pro-war
] fiscal conservatives to propose something.

[ I'm not a big Sullivan guy, but there's some reason in this... at the very least it's creative thinking, which we could use more of on both sides of the aisle.

Everyone is *viscerally* against high taxes, it's natural, but *logic* demands that you realize the necessity of taxes at some level, especially, perhaps, in wartime. -k]

Sullivan on Paying For The War