We're at war. So far, the Bush Administration has refused to ask for a general sacrifice to pay for this effort. But that leads to a sense that we're not all involved, that we do not all owe the troops our support. More important, the war is about the Middle East. A long-term strategy to protect us from constant involvement in that region would include greater energy independence. A gas tax helps pay for our current struggle and helps us avoid future ones. Why not therefore a wartime gas tax of a dollar a gallon? If we do not owe it to our fellow citizens, to the environment, to greater fuel efficiency, can we at least owe it to the troops? Or is that minimal level of personal sacrifice too much to ask of ourselves?Ramesh Ponnuru concurs in part, dissents in part, suggests that breaking OPEC would make more sense. But to break OPEC might involve turning the United States into a larger oil producer than it currently is. Tradeoffs everywhere...
RUNNING EXTRA: Skip at The Sports Economist notes,
A "wartime tax" is not the way to go. Wars are typically financed via deficits. This makes perfect sense, since wars are temporary, and temporary taxes distort decisions in inefficient ways. Bond finance minimizes the distortionary effects of financing temporary expenditures.He also has some thoughts about requiring gas purchasers to pick up more of the costs of garrisoning the Middle East.
