War Bonds

President Bush has committed to spending $200 billion for the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

We don't have $200 billion. The federal treasury isn't just empty, it's sub-empty. That's what "deficit" means. Or, more to the point, what "record-breaking deficits as far as the eye can see" means. So how to pay for this rebuilding effort?

The president, in keeping with his policy of avoiding "reality-based" approaches, seems to think this $200 billion can be magically spent without either cutting spending elsewhere or raising taxes. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, has declared that there is "no fat" to be trimmed from the federal budget.

Bush and Delay's fellow Republicans have been reluctant to state frankly that their party's leaders are frighteningly clueless, so they've just decided to ignore the above statements and proceed with the business of figuring out how to pay for the rebuilding. (This happens a lot. It can't be easy being a Republican these days and having to hope nobody notices when President Ralphie says something indefensibly oddball and out of touch.)

One of the ideas they're kicking around now, according to USA Today, is to: "Sell bonds similar to World War II's Liberty Bonds."

World War II's Liberty Bonds, of course, did not fund a rebuilding project — they funded World War II. See, back in the 20th century, America used to pay for it's wars with something other than a stack of credit cards and IOU's from our grandchildren.

I like the idea of bringing back "bonds similar to World War II's Liberty Bonds," but I wouldn't use them to pay for the Katrina rebuilding. I'd use the war bonds to pay for the war. The war in Iraq has, coincidentally, cost about $200 billion so far. Where is that money coming from? According to the president, it's more magic money — spent without offsetting spending cuts or tax increases.

I have little hope that our no-responsibility/no-accountability government is capable of launching (or administering) a 21st-century war bonds program. But that's not the only problem.

I'm not sure the public could handle it either.

This is, after all, the same American public that thinks "support for the troops" entails nothing more than putting a yellow-ribbon magnet on your car. These people can't even make the kind of long-term commitment involved in an adhesive bumper-sticker. Magnets don't jeopardize your paint job. And magnets can be easily removed should the political winds shift. (Quick — take off the "support the troops" magnet and slap on the "I support our new ant overlords" magnet!)

The War Bonds poster above comes from the fascinating, and inspiring, collection of WWII posters at Northwestern University. Go over and browse through this collection. It's a portrait of a different time and a different world. Every American was, at some level — and usually a level involving sacrifice — engaged in the war effort. People on the homefront invested whatever they could spare in war bonds. They lived with rationing and recycled everything.

That's not the case now. If you're not enlisted in America's military, you're not involved in the war in Iraq. You have neither the obligation, nor the opportunity to contribute to or sacrifice for the war effort. And your president insists that this is the way it should be.

The American public does not today have the character to support a new war bonds effort. (We don't have the savings, either, since most of us are in debt up to our eyeballs. Our national savings rate is negative — and likely headed down once the housing bubble bursts. But bracket that for now.)

So here's a modest proposal for a remedial first step: Have the USO start selling "official" versions of those @#&$ "Support the Troops" magnets. Full-sized ones would cost, say, $500. Smaller ones would cost $100. Whenever you spotted someone with one of the unofficial magnets, you'd be justified — even obliged — to mock them as a freeloading, fair-weather patriot until finally they were shamed into putting their money where their tailpipe is.

The USO's budget, of course, has little to do with the actual cost of the war. But at least this would ensure that "the troops" would benefit from the intangible, ineffectual "support" which now seems so widespread, smug and shallow. And by reconnecting patriotism with the idea of making a contribution it might help to reshape our national character so that we might, once again, be capable of something like a war bonds effort.