Reading the many essays, posts and articles about this great war presents a plethora of studied positions on its waging, and its wages. In the hearts of many lies great fear. There is despair that our system might not withstand its own divisions; apprehension in the face of a foe that is a new meme of violence as much as it is a people consumed with darkness. There is fear that the world we have nurtured and that nurtures us is at odds with history and the future. We can see people everywhere who live out life as ordinarily as possible while they skate around the edges of a vast transfiguration.
There is, of course, common sense in the logic that in the face of deconstructionists we must retain normalcy to defeat our foe. The economy must hum along as best as possible, if for anything else than to afford the means required for the fight. And so, the President, shortly following 9/11, implored his countrymen to keep shopping, keep going to shows and living. Understandable. We are also asked to keep vigilant; to be patient when removing our shoes for inspection at the airport.
One is left with a sense that the main fight in this war is to retain a sense of normalcy, often elusive, sometimes oddly intact, coming and going like a tide. And yet, there is a question that is not often asked. It is not asked by our leaders, not by politicians, nor captains of industry, or many who are good citizens; it is a question not asked of each other, or even assumed by most people:
What are you willing to sacrifice for this great war?
The answer is not obvious---perhaps because so few suggest anything substantive. Certainly, there are those who sacrifice who are primarily in the military. They are overseas, sweating out the details on the front line. Their families are here in the United States, living without the companionship and help of their family members who work in harm's way. Can their burden be shared?
During World War II, posters concerning conservation and the collection of raw materials like tin and cooking fat along with appeals to purchase war bonds were a testament that the war required sacrifice by soldier and civilian alike. Our system has no need for tin and rubber drives now. But what are we prepared to sacrifice?
Many complain about the Saudi's Wahhabist regime, yet they pump volumes of gas into their SUVs. Is it inconsequential to give the Saudis your money? Would you be willing to pay a higher tax on gasoline if the revenue collected was put towards alternative energy research, and get off of Arab oil? Or even just to shore up our oil reserves so we can buffer ourselves from OPEC? Would you be willing to give up some of your tax cut for the same cause? How about purchasing a more fuel efficient car? Or making your home more energy efficient?
The main sacrifice Americans can make, aside from blood on the front lines, is declaring a new relationship with energy---both in where it is harvested, and how it is consumed. One of the failings of President Bush is his reluctance to ask his citizens to sacrifice. So far in this war for our survival, we are asked to do very little. There will come a point when shopping will not be enough. As the stability of energy prices decline, our sacrifices will inevitably increase. We should begin now, and pursue our sacrifice with a vigor that reflects true patriotism. We all can be heroes.
You don't mention another sacrifice some could make: easing off on their Holy Dedication to the Holy Environment. Alternative fuels are a wonderful idea, but barring a miracle we need fossil fuels for years to come.
If the environmental zealots would cut back on resistance to nuclear power, and drilling here in North America where we have oil and gas, that would both give us greater independance and whack at the financing of those who aid in/sympathize with the terrorists.
Cicero,
I understood, but did not agree with or appreciate, Bush's "go shopping" message. I agree with you theme of sacrifice and mobilization. I'm also the guy who pulled the Alternative Energy Briefings into Winds.
That said, I think casting energy use as the primary way citizens should sacrifice for this war to be on par with Bush's statement, equally "technically correct, but macro-scale foolish."
Better energy use is a good idea - more than good, actually, and promoting it as A mobilization beginning rather than the MAIN contribution is fine. But other sacrifices may well be called for that surpass it in importance. for instance, America's fiscal situation may force choices between the war and some domestic programs. Economic policies that cause pain in America while helping or rewarding key allies may be called for. Expansion of the military will require its own level of sacrifice, even without a draft. Etc.
Those are more consequential and deeper forms of sacrifice than a choice not to buy an SUV. We can urge good choices without trivializing them. We should also recognize that energy use is likely to be only the beginning of serious citizen mobilization and sacrifice in a serious war, rather than its end.
My 2 cents. Having said that, thanks for a thought provoking article.
Yes, higher gas taxes. Bush, on 9/14 or so, should have said he was raising the gas tax by 1 penny, per month, until 10% of the federal tax collected came from gas, or until alternative transport came on-line.
Yes, higher gas prices will influence people in changing their behavior, which is what is needed. Also unpopular.
The US should offer gas/ energy tax collection as a percentage of gov't revenue to be the measure of a country's commitment to lower gas use -- instead of Kyoto's emissions.
Every country collects tax. The higher percent collected on energy, the less needed on income.
And when it's a percent of gov't revenue collected, it's a push to reduce gov't spending and total tax collected.
Whenever someone calls for "sacrifice" I become very suspicious. The idea that increased taxes on anything, much less FUEL, would somehow improve the situation I find flawed to the point of lunacy.
Let me get this straight: Fuel prices are high, damaging our economy, so we raise taxes on gas to make things WORSE!?! It's like imposing an Arab Oil Embargo on OURSELVES!
At some point rising oil prices will make alternative energy sources profitable in their own right, without the need for stupid government tinkering. This is especially true for alternative energy with a high Energy Profit Ratio like wind power (>40). Then the problem will begin to clean itself up.
Lots of people will cheerfully make lots and lots of money converting our energy infrastructure over to superior production and distribution methods. No "national energy policy" or similar BS is necessary to accelerate this process.
This is a similiar theme that my father-in-law has invoked, as a child in WW2, he remembers the shared sacrafice, rationing etc and wonders why we have not made the same call today. The question is what would I be willing to give up. It depends on what I am being called to sacrafice for. If Bush needs 5 more divisions of Army and Marines to continue his war on our enemies and to relieve the burden on the current troops then please take my child tax credit back to where it was during the Clinton years. But I also would like to see corresponding reductions in gov't spending as well, less money to dept of education, farm subsidies, housing and urban development etc. Reform medicare and Soc security. But if they want to take my money away to build a larger army plus all these other things, no thanks. As far as energy we should be building nuke plants for electricity. Use oil for transportation and all its other uses
Tom Grey, let's say Bush said that--then what? Perhaps you're not aware that the only authority the president has over taxes is to sign a bill when congress passes it...
Ok, It looks like everyone knows that sacrifices need to be made but because they have not been asked for, we have not done it. Sure, we could build more Nuke Plants (which I pray for), we can use more ethanol (which is not as cheap/efficient as gas, but at least we get to keep the cash domestic), pay higher gasoline tax (europeans pay 5$/gal) and many other big govt actions. None of this will even be mentioned before the elections and post-election action will be slow forthcoming. What we need is right here, right now. I bust my rear chopping wood for the winter to supplement my heating needs. My two little ones get no more thant 65 degrees all winter. I drive a crappy little saturn (10 gal a week, thnx) even though I could afford a much less fuel effecient vehicle. I buy american products whenever I can, no matter that they cost more. You dont need a big government program to do this. Look in your back yard and think "Victory Garden". Not literally, but building a deck or play set with american lumber and american labor is one more dollar in the tax coffers.
Cicero, you've got the wrong end of the stick here. First off, the purpose of the scrap drives was not primarily for the tin, rubber, or scrap paper. They were propaganda tools. Their purpose was to enlist the public in the war effort by participation. There's nothing like personal investment to garner support.
IMO one of GWB's largest failures was the failure to garner public support. The federal government should have been organizing scrap drives, bond sales, and meatless Thursdays. And not because they were needed. To give the citizenry a sense of participation.
Second, most of the foreign oil we import is from Canada. Want energy independence? Annex Alberta (as I recall Joe has pointed out, the Albertans would probably be for it). But that's still irrelevant. There's a global market for oil. Hobbling the economy even for correct ideological principles is probably not prudent.
Third, more important than increasing taxes per se would be to stop subsidizing oil consumption. One of the most important forms that that subsidization takes is the Interstate Highway System. And before someone gives me the poppycock about it not being a subsidy check out this table. The FHT is like the Social Security Trust Fund, folks. There ain't no such animule. It's a bookkeeping device. We spend more on highways that we take in in fuel taxes.
IHTA encourages ever-increasing suburban sprawl. It's an ecological as well as a foreign policy problem.
And it's not the only way we subsidize gasoline consumption. There's a host of other ways.
Mark,
Well said.
I'd like to offer another reason the Deep Eeks should support North American Oil development and nuclear plants -- namely that energy produced here is regulated for environmental protection much more stringently than elsewhere. Therefore, if one really cares about environment of the Earth (as opposed to just caring about the local North American environment over the environment elsewhere) one would favor development here.
What am I willing to sacrifice for the War on Terra? George W. Bush.
He's not a virgin, but I hear there's a volcano in the northwest we can throw him into...
And if you want to offset some of the money we send to middle eastern petro-tocracies, does anyone know how much foreign aid we send to places like Saudi Arabia, et al? I don't know the figures - how does it compare to the oil $$ we send that direction?
I had a sneaking suspicion that I shouldn't have mentioned fuel taxes---because now that's the crux of the discussion. Blame me, I should've left the post the way I originally wrote it: What, if anything, are you prepared to sacrifice for this war? Do you think you are sacrificing already? Do you think either candidate has any intention of exhorting sacrifice? I don't, which is why I think this war is on soft ground. No one is being asked to believe in it. I asked a friend about sacrifice, and he mentioned the hassles at the airports---and I detected no pride from him that this was a sacrifice, more than an annoying inconvenience. If that's all we need to do---get bogged-down at airports---then this is not the war I think it is.
I, for one, would happily buy 'Manhattan II' war bonds, where the money could be directed towards alternative energy independence. Too many people think this is balderdash and poppycock, and offer no alternative vision. Well, Kennedy's vision for a Moon landing within 7 years was crazy too. And it worked. Ideas, please.
I too would buy Manhattan II war bonds. That's a good idea. I wish it would catch on.
Currently I am looking at the new hybrid Ford SUV. I figure if I'm gonna complain about energy independance and the environment, I need to back it up with some action.
This christmas my immediate and extended family are foregoing buying gifts for eachother and adopting some soldiers over in Iraq, or maybe Afghanistan (my mom is organising the whole thing so she's got all the details ya know)
My whole Christmas budget is heading over there to buy long underwear, socks, baby-wipes and the like. I am also sending over 60-100 paperback science fiction novels (I already read them so it hardly counts as a sacrifice, but still).
So I am making a small sacrifice I guess, trying to do something to make a difference.
One thing I have thought of doing on my own is befriending an American soldier and writing him letters. A lot of guys don't get mail, and that's gotta be rough. That's just a sacrifice of some time and postage.
As far as the candidates sacrificing something, well, Kerry is willing to sacrice the upper income tax-cut...what's Bush willing to sacrifice? Our fiscal discipline? (I really just couldn't resist)
I forgot to add, that when I think about some the useless gifts which will no doubt be given this year (breadmaker, tie, you know what I'm talking about, gifts, just for gifting's sake) versus an extra pair of longjohns for some joe overseas, I don't know. It seems maybe that's the sacrifice everyone should be making to me. Making sure our boys are REALLY taken care of, beyond the military definition, whether you support the war or not.
Still buy your kid's some toys though ya know...Gotta have toys for Christmas.
How big is this war, really? On the one hand, we see Victor Davis Hanson's take on things: that islamic fanaticism, fundamentalism, inpudent mullocracies are a really bad idea. The thought of a billion people, hell-bent on raising the next generation to 'take America down a notch' is just mind-boggling. Yet, they are still trying to send their smarter students to our colleges, our universities, both in America and the E.U.
On the other hand, we have the not-much-heard 'man on the street' (whether here or in Muslim countries): by and large one finds middle-eastern people friendly, not nearly as prone to vile denouncement (even in private companY) as the conspiracists would have you believe. Rather like Americans, or Europeans -- the majority of our Muslim bretheren are kind of 'Christmas Catholics', rather ideologically muted believers in their faith, doing only what is really required to appease the neighbors 'who will talk'.
The price of oil is high now, but still has not reached the heights of the 1973 Oil Crisis, or the mid-80's mini-crises. State and Federal taxation on road-fuels, heating-fuels is a constant, not a proportion of the 'going price'. If anything, we're paying less taxes today on gasoline than we rarely enjoyed in times past... compared to our incomes, of course.
On a separate thread, I proposed the idea that the greater Islamic world is facing an inevitability that simply cannot be sidestepped, forestalled or averted: its population is doubling about every 20 years, give or take. The trend has been unbroken since 1950, and it has severely changed the dynamic of the internal economies of the countries involved. If crude was contributing $100 (in constant dollars) in 1950 to the average Arab, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, Iraqi or other oil-bearing Muslim country, then today the oil exports combined with population growth are only contributing $2.00 to the same group of people.
Granted, the countries in question have all sorts of other 'derivative' branches of an economy going that don't require oil at all to power: banking, commerce, foodstuffs, housing, utilities, education, medicine, taxation, governance, science, industry, imports and exports. But in the end, of one looks at the graphs, charts, trends of the middle east, the story is depressing: the average real-world disposable income of the pan-Arab muslim has dropped in the last 50 years, 90%. And that sucks.
The balance is incredibly robust though: a full scale bullet-and-bomb war is going on in the 2nd most oil-imbued middle eastern country ... and the world market has barely moved off its baseline barrel rate. Yes, $54 a barrel compared to last year's $30 is a lot, but in those 'constant' 1973 dollars, it really is ticking in around $13 or so. Oil reached the $20's in '73.
And still, it isn't the price that concerns me. It is the derivative poverty of the oil-kingdom's populaces. It is knowing that should the middle east's OPEC consortium actually wield the strength that it has, tomorrow oil could skyrocket to $100, $150 or more.
What then, posters-who-are-outraged at the prospect of a progressive energy-reinvention tax? The monies won't be going where they should - research, developement, exploitation and production -- no indeed. They will be going to the consortium, and there isn't one damned thing we can do about it, should it materialize. Hmmmm?
I've independently proposed to Cicero and others that our 'oil-tick' tax needs to be laid on heavy, and soon: excess monies (beyond whatever is needed for research) could and should be used to buy great excesses of crude oil from the Saudis, the Azerbaijanis, and whomever else has the stuff. It is pumped BACK into the ground in Louisiana, Texas and wherever else giant salt-domes exist. When the 'ultimate rub' comes, we have not 1 month's worth of "strategic reserve" (the laughable amount we control today), but years supply. We'll be the only country laughing on the way to the bank, it seems clear.
So yes, I affirm the "big fat tax" on gasoline and diesel products. The owners of the 13 MPG SUV's can pay for their relative excesses. Those who buy "smart" will enjoy the benefit of their conservation. Pretty damned fair, if you ask me.
GoatGuy
I would happily sacrifice every leftist on the north american continent. Singly, or as a group, it makes no difference. Speaking as a former leftist who now sees much more clearly, I would give them the chance to face reality before making them jump into Mt. St. Helens. But then, knowing leftists as I do, most would choose to jump rather than face reality.
Keanu:
That is so not with the spirit of the post. Get a grip man. Same for the yahoo calling to sacrice Bush. I don't like him either, but geez, this is about how we can help our country in other ways.
One of the most important forms that that subsidization takes is the Interstate Highway System. ... We spend more on highways that we take in in fuel taxes.
But there are other benefits of the IHS you don't mention -- like it's central role in our economy. More goods are moved via trucks than by any other network and will be for the forseeable future (until technology puts manufacturing right in our homes or very close by).
There's a lot more benefit from the highway system than just fuel taxes. And don't forget that one of the primary arguments for constructing it was to facilitate the movement of people, equipment and supplies in the event of natural disasters -- or attacks on the US.
I agree with an earlier commenter, that the best "sacrifice" to make would be the social programs that bear no relationship to victory in the present conflict.
Did not the US Government, prior to WWII, take a far smaller bite out of per-capita cash flow, and had to increase it to fight the war? We're in the opposite situation now, almost, where to prevail, we need a robust economy, and it's damned hard to argue that our DoD lacks for any materiel it really needs.
However, one "sacrifice" our President can call for today, and it would resonate with anyone: "I don't ask for your money, but your time."
Time spent how, and on what?
---supporting families of the deployed, with housekeeping, errands, child care, etc (my former boss, a laid-off VP of a sold-off business unit, looked after my kids so my wife could get her DoD dependent ID renewed)
---teaching or learning foreign languages of peculiar value in the Middle East (also a way for Middle Eastern immigrants to demonstrate their commitment to America, if they feel they should do that)
Time is today's premium, demand for which will sharpen American appreciation for sacrifice.
On time donated: both are great suggestions, Fuz. Other possibilities: volunteer at libraries and other local institutions; tutor at schools; spruce up local parks, along highways and rivers.
More re: the importance of the highway system to our economy:
U.S. truckers, including J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc. and railroads such as Union Pacific Corp., are hiring more workers and asking customers to spread out shipments because of record demand for cargo hauling.
"This situation will continue for the foreseeable future," said J.B. Hunt chief executive Kirk Thompson at a Georgia Tech University forum in Atlanta on truck and rail demand.
Robin, I don't want to hijack this thread any father but I think you miss the point. Why does the highway system require subsidization? Why subsidize it at the expense of rail, air, or ship transport?
Two issues.
1. Is this really a "Coming Great War?". I'm not yet convinced - but I'm also not convinced it isn't. I clearly don't WANT it to be - as it would mean the killing of untold millions of poor ME'ers (I'm assuming this is the great war you mean) which is horrible by itself, but would end up with the US being completely exhausted, and China, and to a lesser extent India, holding pre-eminence in the world.
I'm encouraged by the news from varius ME countries of how difficult a time ME terrorists are having - makes me hope that we CAN get to the place where terrorism - because every country is vigilantly on the lookout - is a "nuisance".
2. More importantly, sacrifice should start from those benefiting the most - i.e., to prove seriousness, why not have everyone who makes over 500 a year, be taxable at WWII rates? Do anyone have any figures here for the tax rate during those years? If I remember correctly, it tapped out at something like 97%.
We go back to a VERY PROGRESSIVE rate.
JC---It's a 'great war' by any standard that I can think of. We are in the process of reevaluating our system, concurrent to the Islamic world's doing the same, at odds with us. It's a profound situation. It doesn't require mass death any more than the Cold War did. Though it could have. And so could this war.
97% tax rate sounds extreme by any measure.
Yeah, you are probably right. I retreat on that rate...
I stick to the point that the sacrifice should start from those in power, who would lead by example (kinda like the CEO of Cisco, Chambers, not taking a salary for 4 years). Would you agree with this? Bermuda tax shelters, wink-wink, nudge nudge relationships between US defense contractors and "shady" nations, etc?
If some terrorist came up to me and said, "Give me 97% of your money or I'll kidnap/kill you" I'd be pretty upset.
Were my government to do the same thing in the name of "protecting" me from terrorists I'd be even more upset.
&*^*% thieves.
JC #32459---Yes, I agree that captains of industry should show leadership by example. As it stands, I have no idea what opinions Chambers, Jobs, Gates, Fiorina or Ellison have on this war. Perhaps they're on record somewhere, but it isn't exactly well known. Leaders should provide examples, which is probably why I don't feel particularly lead these days. Ken Lay had it his way.
In fact, this is a generalization, but all-in-all I find the Boomer generation to be incredulous leaders. It might have something to do with their famous 'me-ism'; I dunno. Not very impressed, on the whole, and I'm one of them! (Though I'll make an exception for Rudy).
At the outset of the war the highest personal income tax rate was 79%. By 1943 it had climbed to 88%. By 1946 it had been raised to 91% where it stayed until 1964. IIRC you reached the top bracket at $100,000. Don't you guys read Nero Wolfe stories?
I'm glad to see Cicero coming to the same conclusions I did back in February. Maybe we can all work together as voices of sanity.
What have I sacrificed? I, personally, have laid out a large amount of my hard-earned cash to buy the most efficient vehicle that will serve my needs. I could have had roomier, speedier, sexier cars (still have one, it's not being driven and it's for sale) but I got the one that would give me 37 MPG and the option of biodiesel.
That was this year's sacrifice. I've already re-lamped everything I've got that will take a compact fluorescent bulb and turn my thermostat way down. I don't have much else that I can do in my present situation.
Responding to previous posters: T. J. Madison writes:No. World oil prices are high, increasing the capital outflow and damaging our economy. One response is to raise taxes and discourage consumption, keeping more of that money here at home (by making other goods and services cheaper relative to petroleum motor fuel).(continuing after accidental post)
That was this year's personal sacrifice. I've already re-lamped everything I've got that will take a compact fluorescent bulb and turned my thermostat way down. I don't have much else that I can do in my present situation.
What am I willing to do? I'm willing to pay another $2/gallon in motor fuel taxes to actually accomplish the putative goal of CAFE regulations. (Call it thievery if you like; I'd rather have the government tax a discretionary expense than my income.) I'm willing to spend time putting in conduit and outlets so that every parking space becomes a charging spot for electric or plug-in hybrid cars. I'm willing to change tax codes so that new outlying development is forced to pay for all of the roads, water systems and other infrastructure it requires (discouraging sprawl by taking away its subsidies).
I'm willing to pay congestion charges for use of roads during peak hours. Right now the costs of congestion include large hits on the efficiency of vehicles stuck in it; each additional vehicle adds costs to other vehicles, costs that it does not pay. Internalize that cost and efficiency will go up as congestion goes down.
I'm willing to see architecture and building codes changed so that fashionable but inefficient construction (McMansions, anyone?) becomes a thing of the past. Oil is our current crisis, but our next one is natural gas; buildings which need only minimal amounts of heating fuel will defend us against price spikes there. Daylighting reduces the need for electricity, reducing the demand on gas-fired generation capacity. Etc, etc.
I'm willing to use eminent domain to create publicly-owned rail bypasses around congested cities. I'm willing to pay more road taxes and endure construction to eliminate grade crossings for these bypasses. I'm willing to sacrifice rails-to-trails so that old rights of way can be returned to service, electrified and used to reduce both road congestion and motor fuel consumption using dual-mode vehicles.
Last, I'm willing to have a nuclear plant IMBY. I'll use it to charge my car's traction batteries and count myself lucky.
I especially like the "Nuke in my back yard"... what you're really alluding to is that nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Yet, from the looks of things, nuclear isn't "1,000 years supply" while oil is say 50 years to diminimus. The sad truth is that we're using 22,000 tons (!!!) of enriched uranium per year, and the world is using some 68,000 tons. Known world economically recoverable reserves may be on the order of 3,169,000 tons. so, about 50 years worth of fuel. Bout the same as oil.
Coal is estimated to be about 100 years out, and so on.
But as anyone with 2 eyes sees every day: the great fusion reactor in the sky is THE solution. Something on the order of 1% of the world's deserts -- if converted to photovoltaic generation, would supply some 2.5x the energy produced by ALL other sources combined.
That is something to think about.
GoatGuy
- We may have only 50 years of U-235 left, but there is about 140 times as much U-238 if we breed it and, IIRC, about 4x as much thorium as there is uranium; all thorium is potentially convertible to U-233.
- We don't need more than 50 years; at the rate solar is coming down in price, it will be cheaper than nukes before our U-235 runs out.
In the mean time, they're a proven bridge.