I wanted to reply to this sooner. Ordinarily I’d agree with you- if the debate were to borrow $1 trillion to repair roads and bridges, update the grid, send kids to college, install solar panels and that sort of thing, then yes it would probably be cost effective to borrow rather than raise tax. However, the economic benefits of war with Syria are dubious at best. Did the Vietnam War stimulate the economy? I don’t think so. Borrowing $1 trillion at a low rate for war is just flushing the money down the toilet- it doesn’t matter if the rate is low, you just went $1 trillion in the hole for probably no gain.
John Mace says the whole cost question is a ‘red herring’. I disagree. I think the question of whether we should do this trumps the cost question. If we shouldn’t do it, that’s the end of it. However, if we decide we should, I say we cannot afford to borrow the money. Our debt is too high already, and the point that fresh war debt will lead to cuts in social programs simply isn’t getting any play. If we can’t pay cash, that informs the question of whether we should do this- namely, it says we shouldn’t.
I’d do it a little differently- namely a lower threshold- but this generally sounds good. What I want most is language in the bill that spells out specifically how action in Syria will be paid for if the conflict expands beyond ‘limited strikes’. I want that language in there before the first bomb drops. The omission would be so glaring, I’d be suspicious and paranoid for years to come. If we can’t or won’t raise tax to pay for the action, at least until there is broader global support, Syria can rot.