Andrew Sullivan's Confused
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.
My emphasis.
That flushing sound you may be hearing is a good deal of my respect for Mr. Sullivan draining into oblivion.
UPDATE(2/24/2004 1:09pm)
Then again, I do admire and support his strong opposition against Bush's decision to back a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.
UPDATED 9/28/2005 10:06am
I don't admire him much these days because Andrew Sullivan wants slaves.
Comments
The only question being, in a world where not everyone is libertarian and only fighting wars in economic markets, how do we continue to fund the millitary aside from taxes? Or is there some other side to this I'm missing?
Posted by: hiigaran | February 23, 2004 05:29 PM
I would assume that a world where libertarian ideals were that prominent would also be a world relatively free of violence and crime. There's quite a way left to go for both of them.
Posted by: Erik | February 23, 2004 09:08 PM
Hiig, my beef with Sullivan is twofold:
1) He just gives up on the very important idea of cutting federal spending in a serious manner. He doesn't mention repealing any of the budget-busting laws and entitlements currently weighing things down, nor does he discuss the possibility of rotating the greater part of our non-Iraq and non-Afghanistan troops out of their tours of duty to put them to use fighting terrorism. I read somewhere that we have *75,000* military personnel in Germany. Germany! That's more than we have (according to the source which I can't find at the moment) than we have in Japan and South Korea. Something's screwed up mightily right there.
2) He wants to propose a new revenue stream for the government. A government that has a VERY HARD TIME of giving up revenue streams. Not a single person on this planet knows how long the US will be actively combatting terrorism, so any attempt to put a financial end date on new tax legislation is foolish.
Taxes are bad enough as they are. Adding another (bad means) to fight terrorism (good end) isn't something I support.
Posted by: Drizz | February 24, 2004 09:07 AM
I totally emailed out president today citing his "Let the people choose" line from one of his speeches, and aked him if gays weren't people, since they've obviously made their choice around the country.
Posted by: hiigaran | February 24, 2004 02:20 PM