Action to delay tax reductions needed
03-25-03 In the first hour following the initial air assault on Baghdad, CBS Pentagon correspondent David Martin reported that sources had told him 50 missiles had been launched. Everyone keeps wondering what this war will cost, Martin said. Those missiles run a million apiece, so that’s a $50 million strike.
And that was just the prelude to the “shock and awe” campaign that has since rained from the skies over Iraq. After months of promising to do so, President Bush on Monday finally placed a price tag on the Iraqi War. It will take at least $70 billion, Bush told lawmakers.
The monetary cost pales when placed in the perspective of lives. Over the weekend as reports of soldiers killed, taken captive or missing mounted, the devastating cost of war unfolded. Hopes that Iraq would surrender in the opening hours were weakened. This war may take longer and cost more than Americans initially thought.
There is no turning back. Victory is not had on the cheap. If President Bush says that $70 billion is needed to bring it to a successful conclusion then $70 billion must be found. This will require sacrifice and the first lamb on the altar must be the president’s tax cuts.
Bush has pushed hard for deep tax cuts amid criticism that the rich are the primary beneficiaries and that cutting taxes in the midst of a recession can only hurt. At this point, those arguments are moot.
Last week Congress voted in favor of Bush’s budget that included the proposed tax cuts but it did not include any money to fight a war. Congress was making a point that it can’t debate and approve a budget without knowing how much will be spent on defense. Now that a price tag has been affixed, Bush and Congress must find a way to fund it without shortchanging domestic programs. The best solution would be to forgo, for now, enacting tax cuts.