Bill Hobbs says that on the only part of the speech that really matters, the war, President Bush “absolutely nailed the big issues at stake.”

In that part of the speech, Bush said,

And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work.

Stephen Green, who sadly (luckily?) does not think governmentally, observes of Bush’s plea, “I don’t remember any stories about FDR talking up D-Day before the fact, and trying to weasel support out of Congress for it.” Well, back then, no one was claiming that FDR and the US military were the ones who carried out the Pearl Harbor attack and that the “New York money people” (cough , Jews, cough) had engineered America’s entry into war to stop the Holocaust or something. Neither was more than a third FDR’s opposition party - and tenth of his own - actually wanting FDR’s military strategy to defeat the Axis to fail. Nor was anyone of either party calling for the withdrawal of US troops from the combat theaters before the enemy was beaten.

Jules Crittenden, blogger and bona fide journalist (excelling at both), is less impressed by media reportage of the speech than by the speech itself. Read it all. He also quotes Stratfor’s excellent point:

“Bush’s poll ratings have now become a geopolitical issue. …

“Bush’s strategy in Iraq, to the extent that it has any viability, depends on the Iraqi — and Iranian — perception that Bush retains control of U.S. policy and that he has freedom to maneuver. Iraqi and Iranian politicians are watching the polls and watching Congress. …

“Bush is now edging from the area where we can call him a crippled president — if not a failed one — to an area where he could genuinely lose the ability to govern.”

Folks, this is not a good thing, no matter where you stand politically.

Joe Gandelman says that Bush’s speech was “less partisan” than before (as if he had a choice) and offers other thoughts as well as a typically link-rich survey of thoughts across the media and the b’sphere.

My own take: despite that the president delivered the speech well, despite its clarity and simplicity, and despite its actual forcefulness on the stakes of the war, the speech was that of a clearly hobbled lame duck. My evidence? When Bush asked Congress to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, Republicans applauded tepidly and Democrats not at all. This despite the fact that NCLB was the most bipartisan intiative this president has ever achieved and the Act itself was practically written by Teddy Kennedy. I was genuinely mystified why the Democrats were silent at this point - not only was NCLB written mainly by their party but it strengthens the federal grip on local education more than ever. Then at Instapundit I read Ruth Marcus’s observation regarding the health care part of the speech:

Listening to Democratic reaction to Bush’s new health insurance proposal, you get the sense that if Bush picked a plank right out of the Democratic platform — if he introduced Hillarycare itself — and stuck it in his State of the Union address, Democrats would churn out press releases denouncing it.

That sounds about right. This president is so politically isolated that the opposition party neither wants nor needs to appear to support him, even when he’s carrying their water.

Stephen Green is live blogging the SOTU and wrote when the president set the goal of reducing gasoline usage by 20 percent in five years. Observes Stephen:

9:32 “Let’s reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years.” Or did he say 20? Or five? It doesn’t matter. Even with increased CAFE standards, demand is going to go up for gas. We’ll be lucky just to stay even. Very lucky.

I’m reminded of Doc Brown saying to Marty McFly in the “Back to the Future” series, “You’re not thinking fourth dimensionally.”

Well, Stephen, you’re not thinking governmentally. When federal government factotums talk about reducing something over 10 years (or five or 15, etc.), they aren’t talking about actually, you know, reducing something. They’re talking about reducing the rate of increase over 10 years from its present projection.

So “reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years” really means increase usage over 10 years by 80 percent of what we think right now is the amount that usage will be increased.

Just wait - that’s how the White House will wind up spinning it. Because no matter what, as Stephen says, “demand is going to go up for gas.” A lot, and that’s if we’re lucky. If we are unlucky, demand for gas will not go up a lot. And if it doesn’t, well, I’ll see you in the bread line.

ABC News:

WASHINGTON Jan 19, 2007 (AP)— The House rolled back billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies Thursday in what supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels. Critics said the action would reduce domestic oil production and increase reliance on imports.

Yes, it will. One of the fundamentals of economics is, “That which is subsidized, increases.” Likewise, remove the subsidy and its beneficiary will fall. Without arguing here whether oil companies should even get industry-specific subsidies in the first place, if the whole Congress votes to remove them, and the president signs, the economic effect will be to reduce oil companies’ financial incentive to explore and pump domestic oil. The reason is that the House’s measure targets for deletion exactly the tax breaks that provide incentives for domoestic production.

The legislation would impose a “conservation fee” on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico; scrap nearly $6 billion worth of oil industry tax breaks enacted by Congress in recent years; and seek to recoup royalties lost to the government because of an Interior Department error in leases issued in the late 1990s.

What the House, or at least the Members who voted aye, seem not to understand is that the price of petroleum is completely internationalized because the market is, too. If US oil companies can produce oil wholesale cheaper than its retail, or spot market, price on the international market, then they will sell the oil on the market and make a profit. At least the oil company will sell internationally the oil it produces that is excess to its domestic-retail capacity.

But if the cost of producing domestic oil is greater than its price on the international market, then companies shut down domestic production (never entirely, of course, because the restart costs would be prohibitive when/if the world price rose again and companies need a retained production capacity to surge production in that case). Since federal taxes are a major part of overall production costs for the US oil industry, increasing those taxes by removing subsidies simply raises the costs of domestic production. That makes it more likely that the oil companies will simply cut domestic production and make up the difference in imports.

But let gets real, folks. This whole thing isn’t about the money anyway, not really. It’s about eeevvviiiillll oooiiilll. They are simply making too much money, many people think, and therefore must be punished. Well, any product that is consumed by 100 percent of the population is certainly going to return huge revenues to its producer. Just wait until agri-fuels become Big Agrifuel or hydrogen becomes Big Hydrogen and see what their revenues are. (Yes, every person in the country, without exception, uses petroleum products, including persons who don’t own a car or use air conditioning and heat their homes only with wood.)

But wait, one may object, it’s not the gross revenue that is the point about hitting Big Oil, it’s the fact that their profits are so high.

Really? In October 2005 the Washington Post put oil company profits into context:

[I]n 2004 Exxon Mobil earned more money — $25.33 billion — than any other company on the Fortune 500 list of largest corporations. But by another measure of profitability, gross profit margin, it ranked No. 127. …

A $9.9 billion quarterly profit is mostly a function of Exxon Mobil’s size. It had sales of $100 billion this quarter, more than any other U.S. company. … Even so, many companies smaller than Exxon Mobil “earn” more, depending on what measure is used.

Most financial institutions, such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon Mobil was in its third quarter. For example, Exxon Mobil’s gross margin of 9.8 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue pales in comparison to Citigroup Inc.’s 15.7 cents in 2004. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry.

Altria Group, the maker of Marlboro and other cigarettes, made 22 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004, and pharmaceutical company Merck made 25.3 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004.

By other measures, such as profit per employee, return on invested capital and free cash flow, Exxon Mobil is nowhere near a standout.

Let’s compare oil to iPods:

Apple, Inc. on Wednesday reported record revenue of $7.1 billion and record net quarterly profit of $1.0 billion, or $1.14 per diluted share, for the quarter that ended Dec. 30 2006, the company’s first fiscal quarter of 2007.

That’s a profit of more than 14.3 percent, five points higher than Exxon Mobil’s. Yet there’s no bill in Congress to impose windfall-profit taxes on Big Computer - or Big Banking, either. Congress may also need to consider that it might be about to bite that hand that feeds it. Business & Media Institute:

The Tax Foundation’s Scott Hodge and Jonathan Williams noted in an October 26 report that “in recent decades governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits.” In fact, “since 1977, there have been only three years (1980, 1981, and 1982) in which domestic oil industry profits exceeded government gas tax collections.”

When pump prices rose to record levels in the months after Hurricane Katrina, some states cut gas taxes to give consumers relief. Will imposing higher production costs through higher federal taxes put that pressure on state governments again?

Back to the ABC News story:

Democrats said the legislation could produce as much as $15 billion in revenue. Most of that money would pay to promote renewable fuels such as solar and wind power, alternative fuels including ethanol and biodiesel and incentives for conservation.

Just where do the think that $15 billion will come from? Reduced oil company profits? Not a chance: company managers are ethically bound to maximize profits for their shareholders. CEOs who deliberately decline to do so get fired, and should be. No CEO of any kind of company would fail to pass on to the consumer the cost of increased corporate taxes as much as possible. This supposed $15 billion windfall (why is it okay for the feds to get a windfall but not private businesses?) will come from the only place all taxes can possibly come from in a free-market economy: the pockets of consumers, you and me. “Corporate taxes” is a myth, a piece of bookkeeping legerdemain . All taxes in America, of whatever nature or name, all always really paid by consumers. Why? Because that’s where the money is.

Thanks, House - just at a time when pump prices are finally falling, you couldn’t resist meddling. Way to look out for the little guy, the painters and plumbers and pizza drivers and salespersons who have to buy gas to make a living. Thank you also for smacking the aviation industry with higher fuel prices when they have just begun to return to profitablity.

What you have done, House, is effectually impose a highly regressive sales tax. And like all sales taxes, its marginal costs will be highest for the poor and low-income people of the country. Oh, how you cried that the minimum wage wasn’t enough to support a family of four, but oh, how eager you are to gobsmack those min-wage workers with higher heating and transportation and food prices by raising the price of oil production! Well done, well done! You have, as usual, lived down to our ever-decreasing low expectations.

Pessimism abounds these days and if you are one who understands the gravity of the threat of our enemies in the War on Terror you have reason to be pessimistic Too many don’t even believe we are really in a war. Our leaders who know we are at war are taking a minimalist approach to the war. No one with access to a bully pulpit is effectively articulating what is at stake in the war. God bless President George W. Bush but even as he has had the courage to take the punches of the opposition he still has failed to communicate effectively with the nation and to commit fully to victory.

I am reminded of the 1970s - a time when not only many in America were rooting for communism but when many actually believed we had lost the moral high ground and that it would be democratic capitalism eventually left on the ash heap of history. Fortunately we found a leader who effectively reminded us of the goodness of our system and values and who had the courage to commit to victory. We are fortunate that he was able to lead us to victory by committing the necessary resources - and thereby prevented us from ever having to commit the ultimate resources of total war against communism.

We are there again. We are really nowhere new. Today many of our own doubt our nation’s moral standing, many are rooting against our victory, and many believe we have already lost. Once again we need a leader who reminds us of who we really are as a nation, who can communicate articulately what is at stake, who like Bush is willing to take the punches, and who is willing to commit the resources necessary to achieve victory before we find ourselves in the corner with only the resource of total war left to use. I am waiting for that leader to emerge to inspire us to believe what is good about us and to inspire us to victory.

So with all of that in mind, with our minimalist approach to terrorism (Islamic militancy, jihadism, your term of choice…) and the lack of national unity we are seeing in our government today, the following is the speech I’d like to hear and the plan I’d like to see:

There is great fear that exists in the world today.

Here at home in these United States many fear we are revisiting the unpleasant times of Vietnam - that we are being dragged into a quagmire in which we cannot win. But in fact we have more in common with the unpleasant times of the late 1930s that led to the abandonment of free nations - Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and others to Nazi tyranny and millions of people abandoned to die horrifically in the Holocaust. Out of our fear of a despotic dictator not even 100 years ago we abandoned others, thinking we could buy our own national security. But in the process of that fearful appeasement and isolationism we were abandoning our own security, that is, until a man who had the courage to tell us that we had nothing to fear but fear itself led us out of fear. That man led us from the fear of economic collapse when he first came to office with those words and his words were every bit as applicable a few years later when he led us out of our fear of Nazism. Then a nation that was divided at that time - with 82% of Americans opposing potential war with the Nazis and thus unwilling to face the truth of the threat - finally united in a common cause for the survival of our freedom. Roosevelt refused to be led by that fear and instead led us out of fear as the institutions of America united behind him seeing the security of Americans at stake. Roosevelt saw the moral imperative of the victory of freedom over the evil of tyranny.

Today there is also fear abroad. But it is not us our enemies fear. What they do fear is what we stand for. Today medieval powerbrokers fear granting women rights. Today medieval powerbrokers fear educating their people. Today medieval powerbrokers fear the economic independence of their people. Today medieval powerbrokers fear liberty for their people. Today medieval powerbrokers fear allowing people to worship in different ways. It is not that these medieval powerbrokers do not understand our ways and the ways of freedom. They fully understand and they fully reject it because it threatens their medieval position of domination.

There is also another fear abroad. A fear of the people dominated by these overlords. They fear that we will abandon them to these medieval powerbrokers as we abandoned over 65,000 free people to be executed by communists in South Vietnam after 1975; as we abandoned over 250,000 South Vietnamese to communist reeducation camps, as we abandoned over two million Vietnamese who said “you will not abandon us and we will not abandon freedom” as they became the boat people of the 1970s. They fear abandonment as we abandoned Beirut in the early 1980s after we were attacked there; as we abandoned Afghanistan once we saw their purpose as served in the late 1980s; as we abandoned Somalis in Mogadishu and Shiites in Iraq in early 1990s. They fear they too will be abandoned as we abandoned so many in the West when we were willing to abandon Eastern Europe to communism until a man said to tear down the wall that represented the enemy’s fear of liberty.

Our allies fear we will abandon them and our enemies are counting on that. Today - sad to say, but this is the ugly truth - our allies and enemies alike wonder if we are gutless. They believe we lack will and perseverance.

So today to answer that question we have to face the facts of our sad actions - and inactions of our past - that the fearful policies of appeasement, isolationism and abandonment have never worked when we’ve tried it and are in fact immoral. Those policies empowered our enemies and cost more lives in the long run. The policies of Churchill, Roosevelt and Reagan are our model if we want security at home and abroad. We have to face the mistakes of our past when we acted fearfully but we can also look to our past for hope when we finally acted with courage and confidence.

We are not gutless. We know - the American people know - that when we abandon our friends that we are then abandoning our own security. After the 1930s we realized we needed willpower and perseverance and we freed the world from the Nazi yoke. During the 1980s we realized we needed willpower and perseverance and we freed millions from the shackles of communism. And we maintained our peace and security. As in the 1930s and 1980s, we today have the ability to summon the superior industry, technology, military doctrine, and moral superiority of liberty that no other nation on earth can do. So the question today is will we once again have the will and perseverance.

Let me tell you something. Way down deep Americans always have and Americans always will. Americans know that ours is a unique place in history that respects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We know we are the nation the world turns to when earthquakes and tsunamis occur. We know we are the nation even whose poor are the envy of third world nations. We know we are the nation who gives more in aid - both public and private - than any other nation on earth. We know we are the nation to whom the oppressed look for hope and help. We are the nation to whom the sick throughout the world look for cures. We are the nation where churches, synagogues, mosques, and secularists live side by side without constant fear of firebombings or death squads. Ours is a nation where a speech like this can be given without the fear of literally having ones tongue cut out. Americans know that is why today we simultaneously fight a battle with medieval powerbrokers who fear those principles while we also fight to control our borders as people from all over the world invade those borders not to suppress liberty but to find it. We know ours is a nation worth defending and of values worth promoting. We count on it and our friends and those who yearn for liberty count on us.

Americans deserve leaders who have as much guts as they have. Americans deserve leadership that is farsighted and not shortsighted, that can see past the next election, that can see the ramifications tomorrow of abandoning your friends today. Americans of tomorrow deserve leadership today that will not abandon them. My friends, if we do not have the will and perseverance demanded to protect and secure our liberty today then we had better hope our children have it because they will need every ounce of it. Roosevelt told us not to fear our own fear. Reagan told us we could have peace by standing strong and looking to the future with hope and confidence.

Today I present a five point plan that puts our fear behind us and that calls for national unity for the security of our values. We have been nickel-and-diming our security and future. In many cases we have refused to see the seriousness of our enemies. That is a policy of fear and the path to failure. Today we must:

One, keep our enemies out of America by defeating them abroad wherever they may be. This means in the Philippines, in Somalia, in Afghanistan, in the Horn of Africa, and yes in Iraq. We must strike at terrorist cells and confront the nations that support them. In Iraq we must seal her borders and crush the militias with whatever it takes including the broad use of US military might. Telling the Iraqis they must fend for themselves is like telling an alcoholic to remain sober in a bar. These long suffering people are addicted to survival and if we do not assist them they will survive in whatever way they can. The patrons in their neighborhood fear liberty as the drunks in a bar fear the wagon. Our allies will only fight with us if they believe we will stick by them. Our friends who desire liberty need our help and it is the only way we will maintain our own liberty.

Two, we must unleash the free market which leads to freedom. We must do more in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere with a responsible and aggressive Marshall Plan. We must provide security so that these programs have the opportunity to take root. We must cut out bureaucracy and we must increase the presence of our civilian agencies in addition to our military in these regions.

Third, we must fight an aggressive economic and energy war against terrorist groups and the nations that support them - including especially Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Our energy and economic polices must not enable our enemies. In some cases this will cause short term losses for some American interests and hardships for our people but is crucial to causing the collapse of our enemies and our long term viability. We must isolate our enemies economically and become more self-sufficient ourselves.

Four, we must rebuild our military in a robust way. Transformation does not mean tiny. What is does mean is more flexibility, greater mobility, and soldier skills that relate to effectiveness in different cultures. But we need boots on ground to build relationships and trust and mutual security. Today our nation spends less of its GDP on national defense than at any time since Pearl Harbor. That is unconscionable in a day when we are actively at war. In a world in which our enemies seek our total destruction we can only achieve peace through strength. Strength is what they respect. And they must fear us. Diplomacy is preferred but it only works when it has teeth.

Finally, we must use our bully pulpit. We need to call upon the leaders of the world religions for regular and public summits between the leaders of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The religious leaders of the world need to come out of their ivory towers while their people are suffering. We must support groups who seek liberty throughout the world with moral, economic, and every level of support necessary. We must announce hope to all those who seek liberty across the airways of a Radio Free Liberty that gives hope to the oppressed throughout the world. We must speak directly to the peoples of the Middle East and across the world that we stand by them even as their own governments oppress them and impoverish them for the sake of their own personal power. We must kindle their hopes for when the time comes that they too may be free.

Essentially, we must make our enemies afraid and must give the people of the world hope. There was a day when so many feared Hitler, when so many later feared Brezhnev, and then Saddam. Today many fear Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il and Chavez. But the day came when Hitler feared us, Andropov feared us and Saddam feared us while those they oppressed found their hope in us. If these tyrants of today are smart then Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il and Chavez will fear us too while we bring hope to others and security to ourselves.

Our best days are ahead. The best days of all humanity are ahead. Do we have the will and perseverance to make those days happen or will we abandon our challenge and leave our children to do tomorrow what we refuse to do today? Will we leave them to carry out the last resort because we failed to carry out lesser but no less necessary measures today?

You know the answer and so do I. Let’s do what we have to do. Americans - have no fear. Friends - have no fear. And to our enemies - you have once again awakened a sleeping giant. Freedom and security are on the march once again. History has brought us here. Today the wolves have entered the sheepgate and they must be engaged. We are morally compelled to do so. Jefferson said the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. McArthur said there is no substitute for victory. Make no mistake. We will conquer our fear. Liberty will triumph over oppression. We will be secure. Yes, we do have the willpower and we will persevere.”

That’s a presidential speech I’d like to hear, and soon. Today, from what I can see, John McCain and Joe Lieberman may be the only people at the levels of high political leadership who get this to a great degree. Bush understands the threat but it seems only McCain and Lieberman understand that we must go all out. One of the problems is that ours is largely a nation that goes about its business as if there were no threat looming over us - at the recommendation of the Bush administration by the way. A mistake, a big mistake in a day when people must understand what is at stake. Ours is the only nation that can morally stand up to tyranny. However it happened - and whether you like it or not - history has brought us here. Others depend on us and believe it or not we depend on others if we are to maintain security and a viable economy such as the one we are accustomed to. It is a moral imperative that stand for and commit to liberty.

Someone needs to make that clear and to commit us to preserving just that.

Isn’t based on facts or sound reporting, that is. In a story by Kate Howard, Nashville’s newspaper, The Tennessean, reported on Nov. 30 that “State could require drivers to pay gas tax by the mile,” explaining what was aparently a proposal by state Sen. Mark Norris and some other legislators to impose a gas-pump tax that charged a fee-per-mile driven by the conumer instead of the present tax per gallon.

The system would work something like this: You pull up to a gas station, and a transmitter in your car tells the pump how far you’ve driven since you last filled your tank. The state charges you pennies for each mile you’ve traveled instead of the usual 21.4 cents per gallon you’ve been paying with every fill-up.

Members of the Senate Transportation Committee have been informally discussing the possibility of a “user fee” system, in which a Global Positioning System device would transmit your mileage to a gas pump and charge accordingly.

“Gas tax revenues are static, and they don’t necessarily increase with the transportation needs that have to be met,” said Sen. Mark Norris, R-Collierville, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. “We need to look at more forward-thinking concepts … like doing away with the gas tax and going to a user-driven system.”

The Tennessean allows comments on its online stories (bravo!) and the first comment was,

So, let me get this right. I purchase a small, fuel efficient vehicle because of the miles I have to drive to get to work - but I pay gas tax based on miles driven, not gallons purchased.

Someone who designs gas guzzlers must have thought this one up.

And so for a couple of days a political kerfuffle ensued here in the state on this dopey idea. On Dec. 1 reporter Howard bylined a piece in which Sen. Norris denied proposing a per-mile tax.

But on Thursday, Norris said he did not support a fee based on miles driven and had no plans to propose that the idea be studied in Tennessee. Instead, he said, he was just mentioning a concept that came up in a federal commission talking about the Southeast in general, not Tennessee.

“The idea of a GPS user fee system is not on the table in Tennessee,” Norris said.

In Oregon, drivers in a pilot user-fee study have GPS transmitters in their cars that tell a sensor at gas pumps to deduct the gas tax and charge them 1.2 cents per mile driven instead. The idea is, it’s a more steady and fair source of state revenue.

“I do not support a user fee,” Norris said. “My point has been, we’re not properly using the revenue we already have. The taxpayers have already paid for transportation.”

Sloppy reporting or a politician backtracking? Both seem attractibe hypotheses, yes? For the answer, let’s turn to Bill Hobbs, who wrote Dec. 2 that the Tennessean’s story was “Rife With Misrepresentations.” The issue for the senator and his tax-reform allies was the misuse of the present collection of 21.4 cents per gallon tax. Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research and a political ally with Sen. Norris on this issue, told Bill that he was interviewed by Howard for the story.

[Kate Howard] asked if there were any benefits from using this “tax by the mile” scheme. I told her that the only problem with the current gas tax is that the highway funds generated by the gas tax are raided to offset general fund appropriations. If the “tax by the mile” scheme stopped that, and all of the gas tax money went to fund road projects, then I’d be relieved in that one regard. From that statement, readers were led to suppose that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research supports this dodgy highway funding proposal.

My quotes have since been removed from the online version of the story.

I want to stress that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research unequivocally opposes the idea of forcing Tennesseans to pay gas tax by the mile. The scheme would increase the tax burden of all Tennesseans and potentially compromise civil liberty.

In fact, as Bill points out, The Tennessean has removed from its web site its original version and replaced it with a much shorter version, the one I linked to above. Nashvillepost.com ran a story on Dec. 1 that tells Sen. Norris’ side of the issue in detail.

Norris, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, tells NashvillePost.com that he and his staff have worked exstensively the past few weeks trying to bring Tennessean reporter Kate Howard up to speed on transportation issues.

Howard, who just recently moved into the state, has been dubbed “Ms. Beep” by the Gannett-owned paper and is slated to be its full time transportation reporter.

Yesterday, Howard and The Tennessean reported that Norris was floating the idea of a new tax that would charge Tennessee motorists by the mile, something that really is being considered in Oregon, and that the monies collected would pay for shortfalls in Tennessee’s highway infrastructure budget. Capitol Hill insiders familiar with Norris’s track record on infrastructure and taxation were shocked by the report.

So was much of the public, apparently. The story generated more than 80 comments on the newspaper’s website, and a quasi-poll packaged with the story attracted more than 5,000 votes. The feedback in both cases was overwhelmingly negative toward Norris and his supposed idea.

Norris tells NashvillePost.com that he and his staff met with The Tennessean’s editorial staff and Howard yesterday in an attempt to clear up matter, hoping for clarification of his position in today’s paper. Instead, he says, today’s article makes it appear that he is backtracking on an issue due to pressure from readers of the daily paper.

“This issue was never on the table,” Norris insists. “In a long conversation with Howard, I was giving her examples of other types of user fees after I said I was against raising the gas tax and against establishing tolls on top of a gas tax that the Bredesen administration is not even using. The transportation trust fund needs to be repaid by the administration out of existing revenues.”

I’m going to believe Sen. Norris here, whom I have never met, btw, and who does not represent my district of the state. After all, it’s not like The Tennessean has a stellar reputation for fair reporting.

BTW, Bill Hobbs just celebrated his 5th blog anniversary. Drop by and say congrats!

I have written at some length on my opposition to the draft, especially and most recently that being proposed by US Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY 15th), HR 163.

For the record, I thought I’d post the doctrinal position of the United Methodist Church on conscription. It is found in the UMC’s Social Principles (link):

V. Military Conscription, Training, and Service

(1) Conscription. We affirm our historic opposition to compulsory military training and service. We urge that military conscription laws be repealed; we also warn that elements of compulsion in any national service program will jeopardize seriously the service motive and introduce new forms of coercion into national life. We advocate and will continue to work for the inclusion of the abolition of military conscription in disarmament agreements.

Note well: it is not only a military draft that the UMC officially opposes, but exactly what Rangel and 15 other Members want to make law: universal federal service.

Hey buddy, can you spare $800,000,000,000 for Rangel’s mandatory-service corps?

Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964 as the Republican nominee. I was was not even 10 then so obviously didn’t vote in that election. In the late 70s I was a first lieutenant in the Army and was passing time with my NCOs one day. The topic turned, in a non-serious way, to politics. A staff sergeant commented, “The Democrats told me that if I voted for Goldwater in ‘64, I’d wind up fighting in Vietnam. They were right.”

I suppose it was an old joke even then (at least in form if not in specifics) for just yesterday Glenn Reynolds wrote, “PEOPLE TOLD ME IN 2004 THAT IF I VOTED FOR BUSH, before you know it there’d be moves to bring back a draft. And, sure enough, I voted for Bush and now they’re talking about bringing back the draft. . . .”

He is referring, of course, to US rep. Charlie Rangel’s (D.-NY) bill to reinstate the military draft. Rangel has had such a bill before Congress before, and in fact the Republicans actually managed to bring his bill to a floor vote in October 2004, where, interestingly, Rangel voted against it. But before we heap the scorn upon Rangel that he so richly deserves for this stupidity, let us also observe that three Republicans beat Rangel to the punch with their introdction of the “Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001, Bill # H.R.3598,” which is still alive in the House Armed Services Committee. (”Alive” being a very generous term since it’s been glued to the bottom of the committee’s in-box for five years.) The bill,

Makes it the obligation of male citizens and residents between 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless otherwise exempt under this Act. Permits female citizens and residents between such ages to volunteer for enlistment in the armed forces, with acceptance at the discretion of the Secretary of the military department concerned. Limits the period of training to between six months and a year. Permits transfers after basic training of such conscripts/volunteers to national and community service programs to finish the term of service. Provides educational services and Montgomery GI benefits to persons upon completion of their national service. Uses the existing Selective Service System and local boards for induction. Sets forth criteria for deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including high school, hardship, disability, and health. Entitles inductees to request a particular service branch. Excludes conscientious objectors from combatant training, but otherwise requires them to take basic training before a permitted transfer to a national service rogram.

To be fair, this bill was introduced only three months after 9/11, when no one knew what the extent or duration of America’s new war would be or what manpower would be required. It was probably meant as a “just in case” measure that, having already been written and staffed, could be put through the Congress fairly quickly if the defense department asked for it. Since no one in DOD or the rest of the administration has ever asked for a draft, and since President Bush promised bluntly in the 2004 campaign that his second term would not see one, this bill is dead as Julius Caesar.

Rangel first introduced his draft legilsation in January 2003. It is HR 163, “Universal National Service Act of 2003.”

Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service. Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.

Get that? Rangel wants women to be subject to the draft as well as men. Everyone would have to serve two years. The text of the bill itself provides for exemptions of military service only if someone is mentally or physically unfit “under section 505 of title 10, United States Code,” the legislation that presently governs enlistment in the armed forces. No such exemption is stated for service other than military service. Anyone who volunteers for service in the armed forces or is enrolled at a service academy is likewise exempted from mandatory induction, provided s/he completes the term of service satisfactorily. There is no exemption for coscientious objection except that those person, “when inducted, [will] participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component.”

There is a deferment for high school students until they graduate or turn 20, whichever comes first. There is no deferment at all for college students.

Read the text of the bill for yourself. I see no loopholes for anyone to weasel out of some kind of service, although do wonder how many more exemptions the Congress will be able to think of by the time this bill ever passed (if it ever does pass).

There are so many dumb things about this bill that I hardly know where to begin. But we have to start somewhere.

The bill says, “It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act… .”

A. The bill only defers, does not exempt, persons from induction because of extreme hardship physical or mental disability. Although section 5 of the bill does require “every person” before induction to be “physically and mentally examined” and “classified as to fitness to perform national service.” The executive branch determines fitness standards.

B. The bill dragoons US citizens, resident aliens and illegal aliens alike into its compulsory-service net. I suppose one might argue that it would provide a disincentive for illegals to stay or come, but let’s get real. Almost all of them are in an underground mode now and the government does not even know who they are, their names or where they live.

C. Absent truly dire national emergency, this coercive form of service is not “service” at all. It is, charitably, involuntary servitude to the all-powerful State. No wonder Scott Horton of Anti-war.com characterized it thus:

Charles Rangel thinks that having a society where human beings own each other is perfectly okay as long as the slaves are destroying lives and property for the state rather than producing things for private plantation owners.

….Don’t you see? Conscription will deter wars by providing the politicians with a bottomless supply of cannon fodder. And by the new magic principle of “everything works how Charlie wants,” the rest of the politicians will be somehow unable to swing exemptions for their own children.

D. The cost would be astronomical. The US Census data for 2000 show that there are approximately 7,900,000 men aged 18-21 inclusive, and Rangel’s bill persecutes both men and women the prime years for a draft. So the bill sweeps up tens of millions of people, all of whom must be paid. Does Rangel think they will be paid a “living wage” or a slave wage? They also have to be fed and housed and transported and care for medically. Can you say, “biggest ongoing budget deficit in the history of the world”?

The number of women age 18-21 is very close to that of men. So men and women between 18-21 number about 16,000,000. We won’t even worry for now about the five years’ worth of people between 21-26. Because Rangel’s bill ends high-school deferments between ages 18-20, it would seem that up to 4,000,000 men and women per year would be eligible for induction into either the armed forces or civilian service. Note that Rangel’s bill gives the executive the authority to limit only the number of inductees into the armed services, but not the authority to limit the number inducted into civilian, national service (”Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to” … “national or community service and homeland security.”)

So we have 8,000,000 men and women on active duty or service at any one time, including we would assume the NCOs and officers of the armed forces and their career equivalents in civilian service. What might the total be for directly-paid salaries alone, not including associated costs?

Brand new privates in the Army receive $1,178 per month for the first four months and $1,273 per month after that. By the end of their second year they pay grade E3 and make - again, this is directly-paid salary - $1,501 per month. In the middle is pay grade E2, which pays $1,427. Let’s use that figure as the overall average.

Eight million salaries paying $1,427 per month equals an astonishing 1.3699 to the 11th power dollars. That’s $136,990,000,000 per year just for salaries.

One Hundred Thirty-Six Billion, Nine Hundred Ninety Million dollars per year for salaries alone. But almost a million careerists, at least, will each be making considerably more. So a more realistic salary figure is a cool quarter-trillion dollars.

Overhead costs could easily add another 50 percent to that, although probably most overhead would be sunk costs that would be incurred at the beginning and at a much lower levellater. Even so, we may charitably add $25 billion per year. Now we’re up $275 billion per year.

And this is almost certainly a very low estimate. In 2006, of the defense department’s total budget of $416 billion, more than one-fourth is categorized as “Grand Total Direct - Military Personnel Costs.” That $109 billion (rounded). Some of those costs are military-specific, but most would have direct equivalence in a drafted civilian-service corps. DOD has about 1.7 million military of all types and a large civilian-employee base, all totaling about a fourth of the number of active duty that Rangel envisions. By the time operating and maintenance costs are folded in - and certainly the pork that every Senator and Representative would tack on - the costs of Rangel’s folly would surely nudge $800 billion per year and only go up from there.

No wonder Joe Gandelman asks, “Just who is ADVISING Rangel? Karl Rove?”

What is this man thinking? That he can score points against Bush and the Republicans by trying to get everyone on the government dole for at least two years, or that 18-20 year olds should all have a turn on the Statist plantation for two years?

Finally, can you imagine the enormous mischief six million or so 18-20 year old men and women will cause on America if they are loosed to do something, darn it, to earn their keep? Do what? No, really - apart from the two million military members, what are six million teenagers going to do every year working for the government. What?