A Democratic Plan for Iraq

Top house Democrats today revealed their plan today for forcing President Bush's and the Iraqi government's hands towards a resolution of the Iraq occupation.

And though Republicans and Bush himself will no doubt fall back to their talking points about timetables and "letting the commanders on the ground" make the decisions, the plan seems to actually put forth a reasonable path towards excavating ourselves from the hole that BushCorp™ has dug for us.

It remains to be seen whether Bush and the Republicans will have the wisdom to use the opportunity they're being offered.

Here are the key features of the proposed plan and their importance.

Date Certain
Regardless of the any other provisions of the bill (called "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act"), troops withdrawals are to begin by March, 2008, ending by August of that year.

Requires adherence to Bush's benchmarks
This requires that Bush certify that the Iraqi government meet the benchmarks that he himself set up when authorizing the current escalation surge. Two deadlines are involved here. By July 1, 2007 Bush must certify that "progress" has been made towards his benchmarks, failure to do so triggers a withdrawal window within 6 months. And by October, 2007 the Iraqis must have acheived Bush's benchmarks else it triggers a 180 day withdrawal window with the last Americans leaving by March 2008.

The key importance of these provisions is that they force the Iraqi government to do something it has been loath to do in the past, its job. It gives the Iraqis a choice and an opportunity: they can continue their internicine squabbling and parochial pursuit of tribal (as oposed to national) interests, or they can put their bickering aside and become the founding fathers of a new Iraq. (For an extended revery on the value of timetables see here).

And the timetables also help Bush force Iraqi co-operation while giving him a chance to save face (I know, he doesn't deserve to, but it may be necessary unless Democrats are somehow able to put together a veto-proof majority). As with Musharraf in Pakistan, the administration can use the Democratic congress as a sword to hold over their heads. "Look Nouri, I'd love to give you all the time in the world, but these Democrats..."

(Really) Supporting the Troops
The bill requires that the Army adhere to its own rest and readiness standards.

In large part Bush has been able to continue fighting this war by extending tours of duty and cutting short training and equipment for an Army now strained to the breaking point. Bush can still over-rule this provision, if he can publicly and specifically justify his actions. In other words, he has to tell the American people why he's short-changing the troops.

Further the bill provides for obviously much needed improvement for funding for military and veteran healthcare. The ongoing Walter Reed scandal alone shows the obvious necessity for this provision.

Fighting the Real War on the 9/11 Terrorists
The proposed Democratic plan provides for increased funding for the war in Afghanistan.

One of the many casualties of Bush's misguided Iraqi adventure was and is the fight against the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 and their Taliban supporters in Afghanistan. With al Qaeda and the Taliban resurgent, and Osama bin Laden (you remember him?) still on the loose Democrats are seeking to address problems that should have been resolved long ago, but were left undone by Bush's rush to war with Iraq.

Final thoughts (for the moment)
As the top US commander in Iraq, general David Petraeus has just pointed out, the problems in Iraq cannot be resolved by the military alone, but require the Iraqi government to do the work required to come together and bring a measure of security to their country.

And though, to our everlasting shame, the US invasion was the catalyst for the civil war now enveloping that country, it's becoming increasingly evident that our military presence there is not ever going to be a solution.

Therefore the only rational course of action is to stop the waste (I'll use the term if no-one else will) of American lives and resources in an unwinnable situation, while at the same time providing the Iraqis with both incentives to come together, as well as the sure knowledge that they MUST do so in order to survive.

Bush has continued to refuse to make this admittedly hard, but necessary decision. By doing so he has ceded the administration's responsibility for setting policy for the men and women fighting in Iraq. It is therefore incumbent on Congress to force his hand.

Let us hope he takes this opportunity.

Democracy v. Empire

Historian Chalmers Johnson is guest-blogging over at TPM Cafe to talk about his new book with the provocative title Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.

His thesis is essentially that America's imperial ambitions, like those of so many empires before us, will ultimately doom America to either dictatorship or bankruptcy.

And while I don't entirely share his rather gloomy view (though he makes a compelling argument for it, and is clearly much, much smarter than your humble CaliBlogger), I do like how he formulates the current American dilemma:

As a form of government, imperialism does not seek or require the consent of the governed. It is a pure form of tyranny. The American attempt to combine domestic democracy with such tyrannical control over foreigners is hopelessly contradictory and hypocritical. A country can be democratic or it can be imperialistic, but it cannot be both.

His post should, of course, absolutely be read in full to appreciate the depth of his arguments, but the above point well illustrates something I've always felt regarding our current entanglement in Iraq.

That lacking any overwhelming provocation so necessary to muster a democratic country's will to war, we would never be willing to make the very real national sacrifices necessary to winning it.

Many armchair generals on the right have (rightly) criticized the war effort as the result of Rumsfelds determination to do this war on the cheap. What they fail to realize is that Rumsfeld had no other choice.

As we now know to a certainty, Saddam Hussein never posed a level of threat to this country that would unify it in the manner that, say, Pearl Harbor did in WWII. And such unity is a prerequisite for war in a democratic republic.

Sure it's easy to gain support from armchair chickenhawks when their biggest sacrifice is to pop for a frigging yellow ribbon bumper sticker to slap on their SUVs.

But clearly there was never enough support for this invasion to get people to pay more for gas, or even put off a tax cut.

And a draft? Get serious.

So, devoting the level of resources required to both eliminate Hussein and pacify the population of Iraq not only didn't happen, but could NEVER have happened.

And this case in point shows why I'm more optimistic than professor Johnson.

That while the US remains a democracy, however tenuously under the current regime, the major depredations required of aspiring empire-builders (read neo-cons) will prove impossible.

Such thought though should not be cause for complacency. It should instead emphasize the urgency of protecting our democratic institutions from would-be Caesars.

For failure to do so may well doom an American Empire to a fate like those of all the empires before us.

BushCorp™'s cynical Iraq scheme

A few recent news items have finally congealed in my brain to the point where (God help me) I think I understand what Bush is doing.

Item 1: Democrats take over congress in January.

Item 2: BushCorp™ is floating trial balloons hinting of an actual escalation in Iraq, with troop increases ranging from 20,000 to 100,000 being bandied about.

Item 3: Bush postpones his post-ISG report response until the new year.

Item 4: Bush is continuing to mouth his brilliant reasoning to the effect that he wants to justify the deaths and maimings that have already crippled and killed 10s of thousands of American troops, by sending in more troops to be killed and maimed.

So, what does this all mean?

Bush (or Rove) realizes that Iraq is lost and that all those deaths will inevitably weigh on the legacy he seems so concerned about.

How to salvage the situation?

Ask the new Democratic congress for massive levels of funding to support an enormous escalation in Iraq.

Democrats will then have the choice: either capitulate to Bush's demand for fear of being accused of not supporting the troops and despite the public's opposition to just such an escalation, or refuse and take the blame when Iraq decends, as surely it must, into further chaos.

I can already hear the Bushies (i.e. John McCain) 2 years hence whining that we could've won if only that cowardly Democratic congress had OKed one last big push.

So there you have it folks, that's my prediction for Bush's new grand strategy, which, you'll not be surprised, has nothing to do with dealing with Iraq, and everything to do with domestic politics.

Doomed from the start

I was sipping my first cup of coffee, the calming sound of a neighbor's leaf-blower wafting through my windows and clicking through Washingtonpost.com when I came upon an article analyzing Iraqi reaction to the Baker Report.

The Iraq Study Group's prescriptions hinge on a fragile Iraqi government's ability to achieve national reconciliation and security at a time when the country is fractured along sectarian lines, its security forces are ineffective and competing visions threaten to collapse the state, Iraqi politicians and analysts said Wednesday.

They said the report is a recipe, backed by threats and disincentives, that neither addresses nor understands the complex forces that fuel Iraq's woes. They described it as a strategy largely to help U.S. troops return home and resurrect America's frayed influence in the Middle East. [Emphasis mine-CK]

Which last sentence engendered this reaction.

No duh. We're acting in our perceived national self-interest?

No.

Frigging.

Duh.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nations ALWAYS act in their own perceived best interest, even when that perception or the perceiver (let's call him the decider for example) is dead wrong.

Which is why the US expedition in Iraq was doomed from the beginning.

In a nation where public opinion really does matter, (and despite valid questions about corporate control of the media and voting irregularities US public opinion does still matter) public opinion must be reflected, however imperfectly, in national policy.

So, in the US, especially in an undertaking as costly as war, public opinion is vital to successfully conducting said war.

And the only way the US public could have supported THIS war is if the leadership is both honest about why it perceives a need to go to war, is willing to make an honest case to the American people about that need, and is willing to accept the public's judgment should they fail to make that case.

BushCorp™, of course, did none of these things.

WMD claims aside, the real, overwhelming need this administration perceived for invading Iraq was the belief that regime change was necessary to effect a democratic, pro-western transformation in the middle-east. The neo-con wet dream.

The WMD threat, it's since been shown, was just the excuse they could agree on with which to sell the war.

That being the case, the American public never had an opportunity to decide whether it had the stomach to support the real goals of this war, or an opportunity to recognize the potential real costs inherent in this war.

Now it can, I believe, truly be said, that the highest levels of this administration never truly understood those costs themselves. But it is also apparent that many elements of the government did.

But by falsely positing the reasons for war BushCorp™ avoided that debate.

And if you say that BushCorp™ had to mislead us, that the US would never have backed this war if it knew the real reasons for its inception or the terrible losses of blood and treasure it would entail, I would say that's exactly my point.

We'd never have started this mess in the first place.

And wouldn't that have been a good thing?

All the finger-pointing being done now that the Iraqi adventure has devolved into chaos worse than civil war, all the earnest analysts pointing out how we could have won if we'd dont this thing or that thing are missing the most important point.

By failing to be honest about the goals and reasons for this war, by failing to enlist public support for those goals and reasons,BushCorp™'s Iraqi expedition was doomed from the start.

And failure to recognize that truth would be the worst mistake of all.

Dulce et decorum est

Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
(It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country).

So ends Wilfred Owen's famous poem condemning the barbarity of war.

Owen uses his recollection of death by gas attack in the trenches of WWI to illustrate something it would be well for us, in this age of smart-bombs, to remember, death is death. And it is never glorious, for good causes or bad.

One would think, none the less, that a soldier who's died fighting in his or her country's name would, at the least, be able to receive a decent burial close to family and friends. One would think.

From today's Pasadena Star-news:

Marine Lance Cpl. Dion Whitley is coming home.

Whitley, 21, was killed June 15 in Iraq when his convoy hit a roadside bomb. His family's devastation at the news was compounded by stress when they learned his military stipend would not cover the expense of a local funeral.

The money would only stretch for a burial at a military cemetery in Riverside.

Whitley grew up in Altadena, played football at John Muir High School, where he was a 2002 graduate, and was an Eagle Scout.

"Altadena is his home,' Dion's brother Arian Whitley said. "This is where he's been all his life. So it wouldn't have felt right if he'd been (buried) in Riverside, or Westwood.'

The family wants him laid to rest at Mountain View Cemetery in Altadena, where other family members are buried. The cemetery worked with the family on a reduced rate, but they still were short on funds, Arian Whitley said.

Now no need to send checks, the Whitley family's story was published in the local news, and to no-one's surprise local families were more than happy to make up the difference on their own. Individual Americans are typically and deservedly known for their generosity at such times.

But ask yourself this: If Americans are so generous, why are they represented by a government so niggardly that it won't pay for the burial of soldier's killed in its service?

And were this an isolated incident I would still be angry. But the US military has recently become accustomed to send soldiers onto the killing streets of Baghdad in underarmored trucks, humvees and flak jackets as well.

All this is part of an effort on the part of BushCorp™ to convince Americans that war can be accomplished on the cheap, the only sacrifices being suffered by a relatively small number of volunteers and their families.

In fact "war on the cheap" is vital for this administration, because if the majority of Americans had to face the true costs of war they'd be much more reluctant to send our boys and girls into harm's way.

According to our cheerleader-in-chief, all Americans have to do is wave the flag (and not near any open flames mind you) and all will be well.

This 4th of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom, by flying the flag, sending letters to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street.[Emphasis mine]

I suppose that to many across the country that last phrase means remembering them in your prayers.

To the family and friends of Marine Lance Cpl. Dion Whitley, it means raising money for his funeral.

[x-posted at Daily Kos]

Why an Iraq Timetable: A Revery

To my knowledge, no-one has suggested the best reason for establishing a time-table for withdrawing US troops from Iraq: As an incentive for the Iraqi government to get their shit together.

You're no doubt familiar with the BushCorp™ excuse for not setting any deadlines, hard or soft, it was repeated today in Bush's press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari:

"There are not going to be any timetables," he said. "Why would you say to the enemy, you know, 'Here's a timetable; just go ahead and wait us out?' "

The idea is that if the US announces a withdrawal date then Iraqi insurgents/terrorists/anti-occupationalists/freedom-fighters will just wait until we leave and then all hell will break loose. This, of course, assumes hell isn't already long gone from its kennel and is actively trampling the streets of Baghdad as we speak. And further, what if it's true? What if, after the US announces and begins to follow through with a withdrawal, the insurgency bides its time and waits for the last American to leave before breaking out in full force. Would this really be such a bad thing?

Stay with me here, but try this scenario on for size: Against all expectations for reasonable behavior, under immense public pressure BushCorp™ finally sets a withdrawal timetable, with US troops starting to leave Iraq by the end of 2005, and with total withdrawal set for November 2006 (Bush crows about bringing our boys and girls home in time for Thanksgiving - let him).

Immediately after this announcement virtually nothing changes. Why? Who's going to start believing Bush at this late date? So the suicide attacks continue and the Iraqi Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds keep bickering away. But as the months crawl toward December 2005 and US begins pulling some troops back to central locations three things happen, the foreign-import jihadists continue their attacks unabated, the anti-occupation sympathizers begin to see light at the end of the tunnel, and the Iraqi government elements begin to realize that if they don't work something out soon they're toast.

3 months into 2006, after a quarter of US troops have been withdrawn, the foreign insurgent attacks are beginning to falter as anti-occupation insurgents loose patience with their former jihadists brothers, and have fewer qualms about dropping a dime to the newly invigorated Iraqi government, which, under the threat of its own annihilation, has finally reached agreement between its disparate factors.

Meanwhile, back in the states, Army recruiting is back on track, improved Iraqi stability drops oil prices below $50/barrel, and the American public is finally making government focus on the domestic issues it's been ignoring since 9/11/01.

June 2006, the Iraqi government announces full amnesty for all native born Iraqi's, as well as a yearly stipend from its oil profits (having wisely placed almost all of it forces to defend the nation's oil reserves and utility ifrastructure). The remaining Iraqi forces are replacing US troops along the Syrian border who've been spending the remainder of their time making sure no additional foreign insurgents enter the country. Insurgent attacks are becoming more and more infrequent as fresh recruits dwindle, along with Iraqi sympathizers. The Iraqi government begins a campaign to drive out "all foreign aggressors" and is cheered by the vast majority of its people.

September 2006, BushCorp™ under pressure from its corporate sponsors, tries to hedge on its November withdrawal deadline, explaining that it only wants to keep a small force of "military advisors". After rejecting the Iraqi government's demand that BushCorp™ follow the timetable, Democrats follow public sentiment by calling for Bush to resign or face impeachment.

November, 2006, the Republican Senators and Congressmen who survive the mid-term election have done so by promising to follow the public's will and seek a full and fair accounting for BushCorp™ war crimes.

January 2007,BushCorp™, in a last ditch effort to save itself pulls all remaining US troops from Iraq. The anti-occupationalists dance in the streets of Baghdad, the lone remaining foreign insurgent unleashes hell by blowing himself up in his apartment trying to build just one more IED, the Iraqi government argues over redesign of its new parliament building.

In the US, in an unprecedented, though not unexpected move, Congress impeaches BOTH President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. Having been found guilty of obstructing Congress in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, as well as of violating US and international law for permitting the use of torture, Bush retires to a life of brush-clearing in Crawford, while Cheney retires to an undisclosed location.

House speaker, now President, Pelosi announces "the nightmare is over" then proceeds to talk about her national priorities of energy independence and universal healthcare.

Well, a guy can dream anyway.

[x-posted at Daily Kos]

Death and the whiniest generation, part 2

Maureen Dowd had an entertaining little piece in today's New York Times bemoaning the mortality of the boomer generation:

The deaths of iconic figures and the noisy debate over assisted suicide have brought boomers face to face with their nemesis. "Suddenly," The New Republic observed, "we are all speculating about the feeding tubes in our future." Boomers want to control mortality so they're looking at living wills, and legal and medical options.

Though readable as always, not only is her take sooo four days ago, she misses a key point:

it's always helpful to keep in mind the aggregate age of the baby-boom generation when considering the "next big thing". The huge popular and consumer power of this actuarial horror (disclaimer: I'm a tail-end boomer myself having been born in 1959) is difficult to overestimate as a factor in American popular culture.

Is it any wonder that in the mid 60s and early 70s , just as the post WWII generation was hitting its late teens that the "youth movement" flourished? And later in the 70s as this same generation moved into its 20s that the non-stop partying of the disco era took shape? This was followed by the coke fueled go-getters of the 80s, which also hosted the start of the housing bubble as boomers started to get jobs and couple off.

In the 90s the typical boomer self-absorption began to become focused on their off-spring and long term investments. It was the era of soccer moms, insane dot.com investing and a continuing housing bubble.

So now, when those born in 1945 and after are now looking at their 60th birthdays, is it any wonder what the next "real big news" will be? I believe all this talk of Social Security "insolvency" coupled with the ongoing unavoidable mortality of "the greatest generation" (i.e. the boomers' parents) has suddenly focused the boomer generation on what may be their last "next big thing", that is, death.

But icons have been dying for years, and Terri Schiavo wasn't the first, or, legally, the most important case in memory (boomer memory anyway, gen-Yers can be forgiven their ignorance I suppose. But the Karen Quinlan case made its way all the way to the New Jersey Supreme court in 1976, which case provided the basis for Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.

The difference is that then the boomers were in their thirties, and death, while always interesting, was a distant thought. Now on the other hand death, their own, is an increasingly unavoidable inevitablility.

I personally consider the proposition dreadful as the always self-obsessed boomer generation begins its ultimate navel-gazing exercize. But perhaps the very inevitability of the Big Sleep will ultimately shock the boomers into action. Perhaps the nation will be forced to clarilfy its flirtatious dance with death and make some rational end-of-life decisions. Perhaps the nation will "discover" that the only way it can afford medical care for the aging boomers is by insuring medical coverage for everyone.

But then I ponder the demagogues on the religious right whose entire raison d'etre is to prey on mortal fear.

I can't predict which way the balance of death will tilt, towards rational acceptance or superstitious denial, but I believe that finally, in their last years, the baby-boom generation will have the opportunity to step from their parents' shadows. Whether they, whether we, blow this opportunity as we have so many others only time will tell.

Oil and the economy: a primer

As Alan Greenspan muddles further into obscurantism and partisan irrelevance (seriously, he's against deficits, and yet in favor of tax cuts for the rich, and trillions in debt to pay for Social Security privatization? Jeez.) the nation yearns for clear-eyed economic wisdom. And so I, despite the personal sacrifice, as well as my utter lack of qualifications, yet offer my humble services.

Sure my formal economic training is limited to macro and micro courses at San Diego State back in the day. But perhaps that will suffice.

To begin.

Oil prices 101
Perhaps the most basic of economic ideas is that of supply and demand, that is: if supply is greater than demand, prices go down, if supply is less than demand, prices go up.

A corollary: If supply is fixed, but demand rises, prices go up.

This last is relevant to the world's current oil-price situation.

The oil producing nations are currently producing oil at or near capacity, and there will be no increases of capacity available in the foreseeable future. And yes that includes the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, which may provide at most 3-6% of US daily consumption. A relative drop in the bucket.

Meanwhile, in addition to the always thirsty US oil market, two burgeoning economies, India, and most dramatically China have significantly increased their demand for oil, and will continue to do so, again into the foreseeable future.

So, classic economics: oil supply is static, demand is rising, and prices are going up. Easy.

Take the dollar, please.
Supply and demand also applies to international currency valuation. Currently the US is flooding the world market with dollars. And it is doing so in two ways.

The first way is through the US government's massive operating deficit. That is, the government is spending more money than it is taking in, currently at the rate of about $2.27 billion per day.

So where does the money come from? Well, unlike individuals, or even the several states of the union, the US government has a unique ability, if it needs more money, it can just print more. Now the US doesn't just print regular old dollar bills, it prints special kinds of currency like bonds and Treasury bills (T-bills). The main difference between a dollar bill and a T-bill is time. That is, a dollar is worth its full face value right now, while a T-bill is only worth its full value at some specified point in the future. And that, though vastly over-simplified, is about it, T-bills, treasury bonds, even US savings bonds are just a type of money.

So when the US government operates at a deficit, it finances that spending by issuing Treasury bills and the like. The current US deficit stands at about $7.7 trillion, ($7,791,779,810,738.91). Which means that $7.7 trillion in T-bills and such are out there on the market, held by individuals, companies, and especially countries. That's one part of the dollar supply.

The second source of dollars on the open market is the US trade deficit, that is, the difference between what we in the US spend on foreign goods and services, and what people in foreign countries spend on US goods and services.

In 2004 the US trade deficit was a record $665.9 billion, a 25% increase over the 2003 deficit. That is, the US (you and I) spent almost $666 billion more buying stuff from overseas than folks overseas spent buying stuff from us.

In essence we're shipping boxcar loads of cash overseas in exchange for boxcar loads of fuel-efficient cars, home electronics and all the crap they sell at Walmart.

So, is this a problem?
Maybe, maybe not. Here's the deal:
In the past, moderate outflows of US dollars have been essentially beneficial both to the US as well as our trading partners around the globe. Historically the dollar has been one of, if not the most stable currency in the history of human trade. As such it has been a boon to international trade and has become the base currency for the majority of international business transactions. Good for us, good for everybody.

But as the Bush administration continues profligate borrowing to finance its tax-cuts and wars, countries holding large numbers of US dollars can begin to wonder whether the dollar's value will maintain its stability. Even the barest hint of such a doubt can send global markets into a tizzy. In short, if the perception grows that there are too many dollars on the market (that is, to use the classic economic paradigm, the supply of dollars exceeds the demand for them), the value of the dollar will fall.

In fact, international markets have begun to recognize exactly that, and the value of the dollar has begun to slowly drop relative to other currencies, most notably the Euro, which is increasingly becoming the alternative to the dollar in international trade.

I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.
How'd that work out for you Blanche?

Currently the main bar to a radical decline in the dollar's value and resulting inflation, (quick primer on inflation: if dollars are worth less, it takes more of them to buy stuff) is the self interest of the other economies which are inextricably entwined with that of the US. All it would take to precipitate disaster would be for one of the major US donor states to decide to get rid of its dollar holdings. If say, China, for reasons either economic (worries about the dollar's declining value) or political (US support for Taiwanese independence) decides to dump dollars, the results would be devastating. (Good article on the dollar dump potentialhere.)

Now here's where it gets scary
Remember those oil prices?

Another interesting thing about oil is that it is one of those commodities whose trade is done in US dollars.

So now there are actually two things at work driving oil prices: the laws of supply and demand for oil, and the laws of supply and demand for US dollars.

So even as increasing demand for a limited supply of oil drives prices higher, it also takes an increased number of devalued US dollars to purchase that oil.

And given continued US demand, those same oil purchases will drive increasing US trade deficits, leading to further devaluation of the dollar and increasing costs for oil ad infinitum.

Good news/Bad news
There is a way to stop or at least slow this death spiral: conservation. Even small gains in energy conservation can have important effects. Reducing consumption:
1. reduces our trade deficit, reducing downward pressure on the dollar; and
2. reduces our portion of global demand, easing our significant contribution to oil price pressure

Conservation has, of course, some other benefits as well, reducing pollution and decreasing our dependence for our oil fix from countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. As I've argued before, US energy policy should be an inherent part of US Security planning.

So, that's the good news, the solution is simple, conserve. The devil is, as always, in the details: how do we implement a meaningful conservation regimen?

A gas tax of course.

And of course, there may be a few implementation problems, such as the conservatives screaming that it'll be bad for business, and whose money is it anyway? Liberals ranting at a gas tax's regressive, disproportionate affect on the poor. That sort of thing.

Both of which are, of course, true.

But consider, it takes neither a crystal ball, nor a Ph.D. in economics to foresee a time in the very near future where, as a consequence of the aforementioned factors, the price of oil will be much higher anyway. Does anyone seriously doubt that?

When that happens (next year, the year after?) GM indeed won't be selling any Hummers, the poor will be crowding what little public transportation exists, and those dollars spent ($4, $5, $6 per gallon?) will go to stuff the silk-lined pockets of some of the most regressive regimes in human existence, that's whose money it'll be.

Instead why don't we pay ourselves first by taxing gas at the pump to encourage conservation?

Why don't we pay ourselves first and pay down the inflationary and destabilizing Federal deficit?

Why don't we pay ourselves first and invest in conservation , alternative fuel and transportation technologies?

Why don't we pay ourselves first and establish US dominance over the only technologies absolutely certain to become vital over the next century as fossil fuel reserves are depleted?

We're going to be paying anyway. Why don't we pay ourselves first?

A would-be economic demiurge can dream can't he?

Now that global economic forces are combining to push oil prices so high even the plutocrats of BushCorp™ might notice them, perhaps we'll see some movement towards policies that might actually impact our energy consumption.

My fear though, is that the economic purists will win yet another ideology versus reality battle within the walls of the West Wing, and that BushCorp™ will let the holy market decide. And certainly the invisible hand of the market will eventually bring the death spiral to an end, though that end will not be much to our liking.