EJ Dionne has an insightful column on a vital question that's been coming up a lot recently: how should we pay for wars? This debate began as a moral one. Dionne thinks that conservatives have paid for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in an unfair, irresponsible way. Through it all, they've supported lower taxes for the wealthy, run high deficits, and cut domestic programs. Who then pays the cost of a war financed almost entirely by deficit spending? Mostly, it's subsequent generations of taxpayers, who have to pay our bills when we don't live within our means. In the near-term, the administration has made policy decisions that have put additional burdens on the lower and middle classes. It has cut taxes on the wealthy and slashed discretionary spending on social programs. This at a time when the rising tide is only lifting yachts. Dionne believes that this approach has had practical consequences, too. He argues that we now just don't have the resources that more hawkish conservatives want to continue the fight. That could very well be. Another practical consequence of this strategy may have been to undermine the political will to fight a war. Perhaps it is now resented by those who fight and pay for it alone. And perhaps those who were never asked to contribute to it feel like they won't lose much if the war is discontinued. In general, President Bush's fiscal policies have helped divide this country against itself. Could it be that this unfair approach has also helped turn it against the war?