By Dr. Chandler Harrison Stevens

In the first 100 days of the new administration, what did we accomplish?

During his 2008 campaign, our new president said that we, the people, “are the change that we have been waiting for.” So what are we waiting for?

Let’s think back over these past 100 days or so to see what we have done so far about the two main issues that confront us — the economy and energy.

First, what changes did you make in regard to the current economic crisis?

We get conflicting advice — spend more in the short run versus save and invest more over the longer run. Keynesian economics suggests that the massive downturn we have experienced will only turn back in the other direction if we increase spending, both individually and collectively through government.

My family is fortunate never to have had much credit card debt. However, we now buy nearly everything via one credit card, in order to review all of our expenditures on a year-end analysis that we now get for a small charge.

That helps the ailing national bank that handles our credit card, since our larger monthly balances now give that bank a greater cash flow, even though we always pay promptly and never incur any exorbitant interest charges.

We are going to “spend to consume” the entire next small economic stimulus checks, which they say we’re about to get. Those stimulus checks will help replenish our checking account, which no longer, in this year of supposed economic recovery, will receive “minimum required distribution” payments from my wife’s and my IRA retirement accounts that are invested in mutual funds.

Because of the current economic crisis, the government made a one-year exception for 2009, in that we are not “required” this year to take those taxable distributions.

So we decided not to take those monthly payments from our IRAs and therefore will pay less taxes this year. To keep on “spending to consume” we will first spend those stimulus checks when they arrive, then dip into a savings account, but then gradually cut back on wasteful consumption as is needed in the longer run — both to avoid a repeat of this economic crisis and because, in the U.S., we consume 25 percent of the world’s resources for less than 5 percent of its population.

I have decided to join in the generally “conservative” effort to replace income taxes (and the IRS) with the “fair tax” — as much as 30 percent on all consumption.

Unlike sales taxes, this is not a regressive tax, in that every one would receive a monthly pre-bate by electronic funds transfer (increasing bank cash flows) to pay taxes for necessities. That could not be enacted before next year, at the earliest.

The first economic stimulus checks we received last year we did not spend to consume but rather invested in a renewable energy mutual fund within a new tax-free college education account that we set up for our six-year-old grandson.

We knew when we made that investment that the market was declining. It was like when we decided to buy the only stock we own, Hormel Foods, after all stock trading halted following the 9-11 attack in 2001 on the World Trade Center. We “patriotically” placed our order knowing that stock prices would decline; they did.

While Keynesian economics says we should consume more in the near term, investing in consumable energy (like we did then) is better for both now and later.

We (you and I) could invest in small wind turbines in backyards and solar shingles on rooftops, with pluggable hybrid cars in garages. We might not be able to do that though for another year or two, for technical and political reasons. The solar shingles and plug-in hybrids aren’t quite ready. Nor are local ordinances concerning erecting small wind turbines and zoning laws updated.

Nor are there sufficient state and national incentives — such as proposed new energy mortgage vouchers. That could all happen in 2010. If enough of us “go green” by retrofitting our homes and businesses, we could generate increasing amounts of our nation’s and even our world’s electricity from renewable energy sources — surely 20 percent by 2020, 30 percent by 2030, and perhaps nearly 100 percent by the next century.

Let’s do it!

In the meantime, I work as a volunteer for the Austin Coalition for Environmental Sustainability (A.C.E.S.) on Renewable Energy and Communication Green Teams. Last week (see http://co.net/aces/?p=236/) we proposed that 2010 be Earth Year.

Earth Year would occur once each decade — similar to the “revolution” that Thomas Jefferson suggested we have every 10 years.

“Yes we can” declare 2010 and 2020 to be Earth Years. What are we waiting for?

Dr. Chandler Harrison Stevens of Austin taught economics at MIT, served in the Massachusetts legislature as an independent and ran his own business. He invites feedback as mailto:CHStevens@smig.net