Conservatives are always hesitant to support new taxes. For one thing, we have a deeply nonsensical, overcomplicated tax regimen already, where too many people are charged too much with too little of a return. Since taxes are fungible, adding new money into that existing system complicates and exacerbates the existing problem. Second, new taxes expand the scope of a large and expanding government.
But even the most conservative, small government voters can agree that taxes exist to fund the necessary, shared resources that only the government can provide: roads, bridges, the common defense. The key here is that, without government intervention, something critical simply will not or could not happen.
Which brings us to a proposal from almost-senator and current Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke. He proposed levying a tax on households that don’t have a direct connection to military service to support veterans. While the earlier concerns around taxes apply, conservatives shouldn’t dismiss some form of a war tax out of hand.
A war tax — at least in theory — does two important things. First, it gives everyone not in the military more skin in the game. Americans today are more disconnected than ever from the horrors of war. A lower percentage of Americans serve in the military today than ever before, a trend also true, unfortunately, of those making decisions in Congress. Coupled with the opposing trend lines of places with the densest populations and those with the highest percentages of active and retired military, this also means there are more people than ever who never or rarely interact with members of the military. Not only are we not the ones in danger, but those who are sent to fight often aren’t even our friends, loved ones, or classmates.
While this is rarely a reason on its own to make policy, the stakes of war are much higher than those involved in normal policy decisions. The application of early pressure can make Americans more responsive to the incremental progress toward an avoidable war. A war tax increases the incentive to defuse tensions rather than let war happen.
Second, in an era of bloated budgets, where policymakers don’t even pretend to align the inputs available to the outputs necessary, it provides a pay-for. And not just any pay-for, but funding for an urgent and immediate need, support for which is high among the American public.
And that need is undeniable. HUD estimates that there are over 40,000 homeless veterans outside on any average night. Another 1.5 million are considered at risk of homelessness. This is driven in part by increased (and increasing) rates of drug addiction and alcoholism. Suicide among veterans is at near-epidemic levels. And despite all this, when veterans do seek medical help, our system often fails them.
Put simply, support for our veterans is an urgent and unmet need. The common defense is something every person in this country benefits from without having to foot the bill, and it’s the men and women who serve in uniform, particularly those with mental and physical scars from war, who are left holding the bag. Going to war is far easier than caring for the men and women most affected by war after it’s over.
Yes, it’s a trick abacus that says either that we need a new tax to pay for a new expenditure, or that promises about hypothecated taxes are kept: that is, that the money actually goes to the stated purpose. And there is plenty to be skeptical of about the policy proposal otherwise.
But as conservatives, we must dispense with the notion that any tax is without consideration as a matter of course. From the first President Bush to today’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge signatories, this approach is both bad policy and bad politics.
Instead, we should be clear-eyed and discriminating about what taxes make sense when, how, and why. While O’Rourke’s specific proposal may not hold water, conservatives should avoid writing off policy proposals simply out of dogmatism that could support active and future veterans while disincentivizing forever wars.
Drew Holden is a public affairs consultant in Washington, D.C., and a former Republican congressional staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives.
