I’ve heard folks say that we should start issuing “war on terrorism/home land security bonds” as we did in WWII.
Outside of the anti war/pro peace arguments can any one think of a reason we shouldn’t.
Well, War Bonds became U.S. Savings Bonds once WWII was over. So it would merely be a matter of getting people to buy Savings Bonds.
It would be one way to pay for things. Since there is no other plan in effect to do so, it’s better than nothing.
So we just need to change the name to get people fired up?
WAG and IMHO, but issuing war bonds creates the impression that (A) the war is going to take a while, and (B) the war is going to be damned expensive, using up a large amount of the national budget. That’s not the case; the World Wars were really really big things; many European economies were practically working for nothing else than weaponry and stuff, and it was a large chunk in America’s budget too. If you do without war bonds, however, everything seems to go on as usual.
At the risk of getting this sent to GD:
Expensive? Have you seen what Irac is gunna cost us?
Afterwards. Those $75 bn Bush needs isn’t all that much compared to what a World War will cost you.
Sure, the reconstruction afterwards is going to be much worse. But so was the Marshal Plan after 1945. And since the US government apparently prefers contracting US companies for the reconstruction , the money will find its way back to America.
There are good links on that page to realating information, Q&A’s, and ways to obtain them.