Relax; I'm not talking about Canadian fuel prices...
More proof (as if more proof were needed) that the quickest way to a more fuel-efficient fleet of automobiles in those Benighted States of America is higher fuel prices comes from the American equivalent of our CAA.
The American Automobile Association's annual 'Your Driving Costs' publication says rising gas prices - an average of 12.7 percent higher - were largely responsible for the 4.8 percent overall increase in the cost of your 'ticket to drive'.
Where does the 'more fuel-efficient fleet' come in?
That same publication also indicates that the market is moving to smaller compact sedans (which has been Canada's largest segment for approximately ever).
It's not just sales numbers either, but a number not every car owner initially might even think of - the expected resale value of the car.
Compact sedans were the only segment which saw depreciation - the biggest single cost component of owning a car, if perhaps not the most visible - decrease from the 2009 edition. Compact sedans went down 2 percent, medium sedans (the US's biggest car segment) were up by just under one percent, large sedans were up by 6.1 percent.
The biggest jump, perhaps not surprisingly, was in big SUVs - up by 10.7 percent.
Because depreciation is the determinant for the residual value which determines the monthly rate for a lease, it means compact cars are not only cheaper to run, they are cheaper to own.
Double your pleasure, double your fun - double your savings.
Now that President Obama has managed to railroad through at least a smattering of national health care down there, you don't suppose he'd have the guts to try and bring some sanity to fuel pricing too, do you?
Everyone says this is politically impossible.
But a federal fuel tax which would bring the price of fuel to within even shouting distance of the Canadian price (let alone world pricing) would pay for that health care plan almost immediately. AND, allow the US to afford to invade every country it wanted to invade, all at once.
No need to choose.
What Republican could possibly vote against that?