“Pay as you fight”

I’m for it. Let the Republicans in Congress either vote to shut down the Afghan mission or vote to pay for it. I look forward to the debate.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

6 thoughts on ““Pay as you fight””

  1. Mark,

    Is your title an homage to Beardsley Ruml? "Pay as you go" was the slogan for the Ruml plan, introduced during WW2, which instituted income tax withholding.


  2. Do you think media coverage in the U.S. is biased? We are looking for people interested in politics to take our Institutional Research Board approved study.

    Many people feel that the media can lead people in different ideological directions. We are Smith College students in a Senior Political Psychology Seminar and we want to invite you to take our survey. We are investigating the relationship between media coverage and political information. If you take our short, confidential survey you can choose to be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift certificate to Amazon.com. If you are interested, follow this link to Surveymonkey.com


    Please help out two college students!!

  3. You could pay most of the tab for Afghanistan by doing nothing more than trimming all the BS weapon systems development and eliminating a lot of the paper pushing jobs in the Pentagon. We're spending tens of billions a year just on developing/deploying new weapons systems we're mot going to need in the foreseeable future. Look at the Zumwalt cruisers for God's sake. One BILLION each. the navy doesn't want them, the thing has been showed to be extremely vulnerable and we're building several anyway thanks to congress.

  4. You can be for raising taxes to pay for the war (which is what should have been done in the first place), but disagree with the particular proposal in question.

    e’re spending tens of billions a year just on developing/deploying new weapons systems we’re mot going to need in the foreseeable future.

    We're going to need them if you want an Army that can fight without taking serious casualties in the next decade or two. A lot of our hardware is legacy stuff from the 1980s that's been retrofitted repeatedly, and it's getting old.

  5. dan says:

    "What happened to barry’s promise not to raise our taxes?"

    Hey, you want a war, you gotta pay. *Now* you've got something invested in it, doncha?

Comments are closed.