Though Americans are cheering the pro-democracy protests that have roiled Arab countries in recent weeks, there's a price to pay in the resulting run-up in oil prices that the unrest has generated. With oil now bouncing around the $100-a-barrel figure, increased fuel costs are taking a big new chunk of consumer spending - and reducing discretionary spending that could otherwise help push the economy into higher gear.
The effect, if sustained, could be dramatic. The Federal Reserve had predicted last week that the economy would grow next year by 3.4 percent to 3.9 percent. But if gasoline prices stay at current levels, or higher, the economy likely will not get over the 3 percent level, because American drivers will have to spend so much more on fuel.
The extra spending could easily eat up fully a quarter of the $120 billion stimulus effect of the payroll tax cuts President Obama got Republicans to support in December. The dampened consumer spending, in turn, would slow hiring, manufacturing and sales.
The slower economy would further reduce tax revenue for local and state governments, causing more cuts in services and employees, and put downward pressure on the dollar, raising the cost of imported goods.
That will hurt the United States more than Europe and Japan, which have significantly lower rates of per-capita energy use. Americans simply use more energy per capita - fully a quarter of the world's oil, for longer commutes, bigger cars, and less energy-efficient homes and businesses - than our counterparts in other advanced industrial nations.
This excessive energy consumption remains America's Achilles' heel. It undermines our economy and our national security.
Thomas Friedman, author and a syndicated columnist for The New York Times who appears frequently on this page, advocates in his latest column that America phase in, at a nickel a month, a new $1 tax on gasoline to help steer American consumers and businesses toward greater energy efficiency.
His proposal makes excellent sense in several respects. Since oil imports account for roughly half of America's huge $500 billion annual trade deficit, such an incremental tax would kick-start a trend that would steadily reduce the gigantic transfer of American wealth to oil-producing countries. It would spur new levels of energy efficiency, a trend which would help offset or neutralize the inevitable future oil price increases as the global economy quickens.
The tax revenue also would help reduce federal deficit spending and the interest costs on the federal debt. Reductions in oil imports and oil use would also strengthen America's security posture by diminishing U.S. reliance on Middle East oil, and it would provide valuable environmental and health benefits from reductions in tailpipe and carbon emissions.
We frankly don't expect such a tax to be enacted. It's too sensible and practical for the timid politicians in Washington to embrace. But it's a worthy proposal, one that would have a range of multiple - and multiplying - long-term benefits.