In a blog post last week, I wrote that "no politician worth their salt will support a massive progressive tax increase to pay off all the debt generated by the war." We here at OMB Watch believe in holding people accountable, so here goes: I was wrong. Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) has basically done just that, and he is a politician "worth his salt" (full disclosure: he's the co-chair of the board of the Congressional Hunger Center, which runs an amazing fellowship that first got me to Washington). He writes in the Boston Globe today: Members of the US Armed Forces who are currently exempted from taxes because they receive combat zone compensation - as well as their spouses - would not be subject to the war surtax. Survivors of fallen soldiers would also be exempt. But the rest of us would begin to pay at least something. Currently, we are paying for the war in Iraq not through the normal budget process but by borrowing and increasing the national debt - by putting the costs onto the national credit card. Every morning, countries like China and India buy up this debt, further weakening our economy and our national security. I haven't seen the details of Rep. McGovern's proposal, which has support from Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. David Obey (D-WI). And there's about a snowball's chance that it'll be enacted, because the Democratic House leadership has come out strongly against it. But it would be nice if we paid our war bills progressively (can we quit this business about China and India buying up our debt and just talk about how it's potentially highly regressive?). The fact of the matter is that a "war tax" is inevitable. The question is, who are we going to tax and when are they going to pay it? Without a tax like this, it doesn't seem like there's much chance that it'll be progressive.