A few Democrats in Congress are floating the idea that if we want to escalate the war in Afghanistan–and rumors suggest that is what President Barack Obama wants to do–then we need to pay for it with a new tax. Some are suggesting that this tax should hit both the wealthy and the middle class.
It’s an intriguing proposition. In recent history Republicans have been more supportive of military efforts and less supportive of tax increases than Democrats, so what would this proposed tax do? Obviously, it might make Republicans more amenable to a tax increase, or it might make them less supportive of the war.
These Democrats are arguing that tax cuts + war expenditures = screwed up budgets. It was also argued that this was the mistake made during the Vietnam War and the most recent Iraq War.
It’s interesting how often wars impact political considerations. Lyndon Johnson pushed for a tax cut as a trade off for support on Vietnam. Richard Nixon proposed/agreed to liberal domestic policies as his trade off for support later on in Vietnam. Isn’t it interesting how well such moves worked out, as Johnson went down as one of the most popular Presidents in history and Nixon is still widely loved and praised by liberals. Oh, wait a minute, those situations were just the opposite of how I described them.
Anyway, is the pro war tax crowd trying to responsibly pay for an expensive war, or are they trying to undermine support for it? Are they being statesmen like or are they simply being cynical and partisan? It’ll be interesting to see how history judges them.