Henrik Weis | Lifesize | Getty Images

Respected columnist and author Thomas Friedman has been among the most audible voices in warning the USA about our dependency on foreign oil and our need to end our addiction to this commodity post haste. But his latest call for a $1.00 per gallon gasoline tax to curtail our fuel consumption, the proceeds of which would go towards deficit reduction, misses the mark.

First of all, where Mr. Friedman is absolutely correct is his concern itself which is well founded. Consider: in 1970 the USA imported 30 percent of its crude oil. That figure has effectively doubled in the last thirty years to just shy of 60 percent.

Not since the ill-fated Axis powers of World War II has such a powerful nation so relied on foreign entities to supply its daily energy needs. This is a potential national security nightmare. (Indeed, as much as losses in the field, Germany and Japan were brought to their knees by choking off their energy supplies and causing their military machines to grind to a halt.)

However, Mr. Friedman’s proposal of imposing altered behavior on consumers via a $1.00 gallon gas tax, even one phased in over time, will unduly penalize many lower and middle class workers who have little choice at this time but to commute (this is not like a voluntary consumption tax on soda) and for whom their annual fixed costs would increase anywhere between $500-$1,000 depending on the location and vehicle gas mileage.

Moreover, his idea places inordinate faith in the federal government to properly spend any new tax revenues they do receive with any modicum of discipline needed to pay down the deficit.

Imposing a draconian gas tax at this time, with 15 million already unemployed, with the economy in a precarious position, is not quite the medicine needed at the moment. In fact, it could make matters much worse. I don’t think it takes an economics guru to conclude that $1.00/gallon on top of an already high $3.18 national average could negatively impact consumption in other areas (and we are still very a much a consumption-based economy).

In just one example, an interesting study done by the Center For Business And Economic Research at Ball State University simulated the impact of a $1.00 price increase from a benchmark of $3.00 gallon (not via taxes, just a market rise) on the economy of Indiana. It concluded that the economic activity in that state would be lower by almost -2% and employment by roughly -1.3 percent.

It also offered that tax revenues would decline by -.5 percent. When economic activity falls, tax revenues do as well. Human behavior is unpredictable and it is not a given that $1.00 tax on gasoline will translate into a $1.00 net increase in revenues to Uncle Sam. There is the law of unintended consequences to consider.

I admit that this is just one report in one state, but I suspect similar studies will show the same. Even though numbers can be tortured to say anything to support a policy initiative, common sense dictates that a dollar steered towards higher commuting costs will have a negative impact on the rest of consumption and thus the overall economy all else being equal.

The most far-fetched component of Mr. Freidman’s “one little gasoline tax” proposal is that the extra revenues (should they materialize) will be diverted towards “paying down the deficit.” A noble idea, but if Mr. Friedman honestly believes that Congress will take this windfall and actually use it to for its intended purpose rather than employ clever accounting tricks to steer the cash to their favorite pet projects, well, I have a Social Security “lock box” stuffed with IOUs I’d like to sell him.

Still, if there was no other alternative to Mr. Friedman’s proposal, then I would give it serious consideration. But the fact is, we do have alternatives, both to give us some short-term relief and long-term stability.

As of yesterday we need to immediately open up ANWR and the shallow off-shore regions to exploration and drilling. I love caribou as much as the next person, but this must be done. Even the most conservative estimates tell us that by 2018 if development were green-lighted today, ANWR could be producing as much as 780,000 and then slowing to 710,000 barrels a day by 2030. Also it is estimated that 18 billion barrels of crude oil are contained in areas currently off-limits to drilling for environmental reasons. No nation has denied itself so much abundance of its own domestic natural resources as has the USA.

To be sure, there are environmental risks to an aggressive drilling policy. But environmentalists need to consider the consequences of the USA being cut off from 2/3 of its energy needs...unrealistic given that friendly Canada is our single largest outside supplier, but not impossible. There is no greater killer than the effects of poverty resulting from a collapsed economy.

Rationing the transportation of goods due to lack of petrol means limited delivery of food to our cities, medicines to rural areas, heating oil for homes and businesses in the northeast during the winter, etc. The humanitarian and health consequences would soon be apparent to even the most ardent of green advocates.

Beyond “drill baby drill” our real pathway to true energy independence lies in resurrecting the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program. This program which began with such fanfare under Jimmy Carter was cancelled under the Reagan administration.