You know, I guess I feel kind of sorry for W.

I have a feeling he's really going to get hammered over the economy.

A career in journalism does something to you.

It makes you skeptical. It makes you pessimistic. It didn't start out that way, it just evolved over time.

When I first got in the business, right out of college, I had this idealistic vision of what the thrill-a-minute world of big-time, professional journalism would be like.

It wasn't like that.

I had the idea that I would be able to change the world. I didn't.

But what I did learn - real quick - was that you had to check things out. You had to be skeptical. You had to be pessimistic to be any good at journalism at all.

Wordsmith and syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick once said, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

So that's why I'm pretty pessimistic and skeptical about the economy these days.

I am a little concerned that energy is going to be a really big problem and I think W is going to shoulder a lot of the blame even though he probably has very little to do with it.

If Al Gore or Ralph Nader were president right now, energy issues and the economy wouldn't be significantly different, but the liberals will never admit that.

They will say that it was W who got us into any crisis that may be impending.

And I think - enter pessimism and skepticism - that there truly is the potential for crisis.

That's why I feel kind of sorry for W. I would feel sorry for anybody in charge at the White House right now.

The rising price of energy has the potential to wreak some real havoc on the economy.

We really need to be less dependent on foreign oil to avoid this, but anytime anybody suggests punching new holes in the North Slope of Alaska or on the floor of the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico, all the environmentalists freak out.

Of course these are the same environmentalists who drive enormous vehicles capable of towing a three-bedroom home off its foundation.

They drive them six blocks round- trip to the grocery store to pick up a bottle of Chardonnay. And they always buy the "friend of the environment" license tag.

So I don't hold out much hope of us ever being able to do much new oil drilling.

It would have been nice if we would have put ourselves a little ahead of the game by exploring alternative energy sources a long time ago.

But you know if you make a car that doesn't burn up lots of fuel, that hurts the oil industry. The oil industry gives lots of money to politicians to make sure its interests are served.

At the same time, politicians have taxed petroleum products to the point where too much reduction in their consumption will cause revenue problems.

Now that the energy problem is nearing a crisis stage, we may see some movement there, but it won't happen overnight.

And let's face it. It's just not easy being green, anyway.

A couple companies have come out with hybrid cars that run on gas and electricity. The gas engine powers the car and also keeps a bank of batteries charged via an alternator.

The cars, which are really pretty peppy and sporty, get around 70 miles to a gallon of gas.

Problem is, nobody will buy them.

One would have thought environmentally conscious folks all over America would be driving these new hybrid cars, but no.

Apparently driving up the side of a crater in four-wheel-drive is more important.

But you know when fuel gets to $3 a gallon, maybe things might start to changes.

Problem is, the price of fuel has far-reaching consequences that nobody really thinks about.

Sure, high-priced fuel puts a pinch on you wallet, but it goes way beyond that.

First, every dollar spent on fuel is a dollar not spent somewhere else in the economy. That will have an effect on the economy that Alan Greenspan and his interest rate cuts can't touch.

Fuel is not optional. You have to buy it. You can only cut back to a certain degree.

And if you do cut back, it won't be missing a trip to work. It will be canceling a pleasure trip or a shopping trip, pulling more money out of the rest of the economy.

Next, the cost of fuel figures into everything that is shipped. Which means that it figures into everything. Do you suppose manufacturers will simply absorb the increased shipping costs they incur?

Nope. You will help them pay.

Of course you will have less disposable income to help them pay because you have to pay more for fuel.

So it is likely you will buy less stuff. When you buy less, manufacturers manufacture less.

Petroleum also is in lots of stuff that you don't really think about.

Farmers, for example, get hit really hard when fuel prices rise. They use a lot of fuel to work the land and transport their crops. And they use natural gas and electricity to dry their crops. But fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers also use petroleum to make those products, so those costs will rise, too.

Get the idea that the price of food might go up with the price of fuel?

Get the idea that the price of everything might go up with the price of fuel?

Here's a couple paragraphs I gleaned from an Associated Press story this week. It was talking about the price of fuel in Illinois.

Pump prices in the Chicago area averaged $1.86 a gallon Wednesday, compared to $1.57 for the same period a year ago. Gas prices shot up to a record $2.14 last summer.

'We don't know what they're going up to,' AAA spokeswoman Carol Loda said. 'There's talk that they're going up to $4. They could be $3 to $4 by the end of the summer. They're going up like crazy.'

And gas isn't the only problem. Experts are warning of the potential for rolling blackouts in places other than California.

Buckle up, W, it may be a bumpy summer ride. [[In-content Ad]]