Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space

"A community’s physical form, rather than its land uses, is its most intrinsic and enduring characteristic." [Katz, EPA] This blog focuses on place and placemaking and all that makes it work--historic preservation, urban design, transportation, asset-based community development, arts & cultural development, commercial district revitalization, tourism & destination development, and quality of life advocacy--along with doses of civic engagement and good governance watchdogging.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Proving once and for all that U.S. defense spending is mostly about maintaining access to oil

The Washington Post suggests today in an editorial, "Paying for war," that to pay for the increased cost of war in Afghanistan, that the federal excise tax on gasoline be increased, not to pay for costs for roads and transit--as the estimated cost per mile of driving is 11 cents to maintain the road system as it is, and 20 to 30 cents per mile to improve the system (including transit--but for war, and when the war is done then the money can be dedicated to transportation. From the editorial:

As we have pointed out before, the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon has not been raised since 1993 and is long overdue for an increase. Two federal commissions have proposed one in the past couple of years. In January the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission said its recommended hike of 10 cents a gallon for gasoline and 15 cents for diesel would raise $20 billion a year.

A 40-cent increase over five years, proposed by a second federal commission, would cover most or all of the war's costs and still leave gasoline prices well short of where they were in the summer of 2008. Those months showed that higher prices could do much to reduce U.S. carbon emissions -- another national imperative. While most proponents of a higher gasoline tax want to use the money for highway infrastructure, or refund it to taxpayers, Congress could shift funding to those purposes once the U.S. mission in Afghanistan begins to wind down.
Exxon Ad
I am not an artist, but for a long time I've wanted to do a political-artistic redo of the old Exxon advertisements with the tagline "put a tiger in your tank" to "put a dead soldier in your tank" to make very clear the links between U.S. foreign and military policy and maintaining automobility and sprawl.

The average yearly number of vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. is about 3 trillion.

The average yearly cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan is about 100 billion dollars.

The average mileage per vehicle in the U.S. is 17 miles per gallon.

And probably half the cost of the rest of the military budget is related to maintaining stability in areas where the U.S. has strategic interests related to access to oil. Last fiscal year, that was over $500 billion, so let's say the net dedicated to maintaining access to oil is about $250 billion.

Adding the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to this amount equals $350 billion.

$350,000,000,000/3,000,000,000,000 = 11.67 cents per mile of driving as the cost of maintaining militarily access to oil.

The federal gasoline excise tax is 18.3 cents per gallon.

If the cost to maintain the current system is 11 cents per gallon, and the cost of the military is 11.67 cents per gallon then the base need for the federal gasoline excise tax at a cost recovery rate, just to pay for things the way they are is:

$3.85/gallon.

Of course, I think that the gasoline excise tax should be pegged at the average mpg per vehicle, not at the specific rate by car, so yes, people with better mileage would be penalized under this system. But over time, as the average mileage of the fleet of all vehicles improved, the rate could be adjusted.

------------
Note that I have wanted to write about Afghanistan even though it has nothing to do with the blog, which is why I haven't written about it. Today's cover story in the Post by Keith Richburg, "Plan to show possibility, limits of nation building," starts with a flawed premise, that Afghanistan is a nation that needs to be restored to social, economic, and political health.

Actually, Afghanistan is a collection of tribes. It's not a nation. (Of course, I am an expert on this having read the schlock fiction book Far Pavilions many years ago.) Just like Yugoslavia wasn't really a nation either but a collection of ethnic provinces. Or how Czechoslovakia was really two separate nations, etc.
33361-humpty_dumpty
So like with humpty dumpty, putting Afghanistan back together as a "nation," when it was never a nation to begin with, is an impossible task

Labels: , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home