By David S. Broder

Wednesday, December 4, 2002; Page A23

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, all Americans knew that their lives had been changed, even those of us who were so young we could hardly grasp the enormity of what had happened. Within a week, we were dealing not just with the first casualty reports but with shortages and impending rationing. Higher taxes were soon to come, and even 12-year-olds like myself were recruited to help on local farms to replace the men who had gone off to war.

This Pearl Harbor Day finds us engaged in a worldwide war on terrorism and preparing for a possible ground war with Iraq. But the notion of shared sacrifice is notably missing.

Last Saturday President Bush expressed the nation's "renewed appreciation . . . for the men and women who serve" in the armed services, and he urged others to join "the armies of compassion." Let us, he said, "make this season a season of service."

Earlier in the week, in connection with signing the legislation to create a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, Bush addressed federal employees in a memorandum about what he called "my highest and most urgent priority," protecting the American people from another terrorist attack. He praised the civil servants for their "hard work and unwavering dedication" and said, "Americans owe you their gratitude for helping to keep their families and their communities secure."

A few days later, Bush told those same federal workers that he was curtailing their pay increases because granting the "full statutory pay increases in 2003 would interfere with our nation's ability to pursue the war on terrorism." Instead of the 4.1 percent raise that was moving through Congress before it adjourned for the year, the president said the workers would get a 3.1 percent boost.

For the average federal employee in Washington, that translates to a loss of about $700, but the administration said it would save $1 billion nationally.

As the late Sen. Everett Dirksen liked to say, "a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." But the billion-dollar savings has to be put in context. The Pentagon budget for next year -- which does not include the funding of an Iraqi war -- is $355 billion, up 10 percent over 2002.

The farm bill, which the president signed back in May with an eye to November's Midwest Senate races, will cost $248 billion over the next six years. Fiscal conservatives in both parties objected to its expanded subsidies to large farm operators, but the president did not hesitate to give it his blessing. And he has defended his 10-year tax cut, which will cost the Treasury $1.3 trillion and mostly will benefit top-bracket earners. Indeed, he wants to make the tax cuts permanent, and there's talk in the White House of accelerating them.

Oddly enough, the same president who says, with a straight face, that a $1 billion federal pay raise would "interfere with . . . the war on terrorism" insists the tax cut can go forward as if the budget were still in surplus and al Qaeda had never struck. The mixed message to federal workers -- words of praise followed by a lump of coal in their Christmas stockings -- comes as administration officials and private foundations are trying to persuade thousands of talented young people to take up government careers and replace those who are slated for retirement.

Much the same thing is happening in the armed services. Recruitment has not become easier since 9/11 -- another great difference from Pearl Harbor. The draft is long gone, and what was once a military reflective of the whole society is now made up largely of those with backgrounds that narrow their prospects and reduce their options. As my friend, columnist Mark Shields, pointed out recently, when Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, not a single member of the House and only one senator had a son or daughter serving in the enlisted ranks of the armed services. And only three House members have children who are officers.

More than 130,000 reservists have been activated -- taken from their civilian jobs and their families -- since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Some of them are in their second year of service, because no one is available to replace them. Thousands more will be called up if we fight Iraq. Almost everywhere you look, the element of shared sacrifice that should be expected in a nation at war is missing. A few people are being asked to give up a lot -- measured in time or money -- while others are being indulged in ways no one can claim are fair.

So spare me, please, the comparisons to Pearl Harbor.