The first half of 2009 has whizzed by in what seems like a macroeconomic eye-blink. Wasn't President Obama inaugurated just a few weeks ago? It's a cliché but it's true: time flies.

The nation has made strides to recover from its near-decade of policy errors, but much work remains. Accordingly, then, here are three economic wishes for the United States for the second half of the year:

Every once in a while, one comes across a story-behind-a-story - - one that represents an innovative idea with promise.

One such idea surfaced recently when billionaire oilman and maverick T. Boone Pickens, while forecasting $200-300 per barrel oil in 10 years to marketwatch.com, also expanded on another project: getting 350,000 18-wheeler trucks converted to natural gas through a federal subsidy program.

Energy producers may soon notice the decided shift in the wind in Washington, political and otherwise.

After consulting with Congressional Democrats, President-elect Barack Obama moved quickly to double his proposed tax credit for renewable energy in his fiscal stimulus package to $20 billion. The Obama Administration's overall fiscal stimulus package is expected to total about $700-$850 billion.

New 'sheriff' in town

Economist Peter Dawson told BloggingStocks said Obama's energy discussions with Democrats on Capitol Hill display both Washington savvy and a decidedly new energy tone inside the corridors of power.

"First, Obama, so far, is making good on his 'all ideas considered' philosophy. Congressional Dems wanted a renewable energy tax credit program that will help speed the development of solar and wind power, and $20 billion in 2009 will further that goal. So Obama's collaborative decision making process is being deployed," Dawson said

The United States is preparing for a new year, and a new presidential administration -- one that has the potential to usher-in a rejuvenation of the U.S. economy, society, and culture, after nearly a decade of descent.

Still, that's not to say measures should not be taken to keep the Obama Administration and the Democrats honest. Now yours truly is not talking about the rhetorical observations and critiques of right-wing talk radio, which opposes seemingly everything from an increase in federal student loan programs to the rising of the sun in the east, but rather about techniques investors can use to make sure the Obama Administration remains true to its word -- i.e., to keep Obama and the Democrats honest.

Benchmark 1: The economy and job growth. Obama and the Democrats have promised a large fiscal stimulus package that invests in the nation's infrastructure and public institutions (schools, hospitals, civil administration buildings, parks), and that provides aid to the states, among other benefits. The fiscal stimulus package alone will not guarantee a return to robust economic growth and job creation, but it will point the U.S. economy in the direction of sustainable growth, with hundreds of thousands of jobs that will help 'prime the pump' for additional commercial activity. Hence, the U.S. economy and the stimulus package represent the top priority: any failure to deliver here would be a serious underperformance.

President-elect Barack Obama and the new U.S. Congress, correctly, have to focus on getting the U.S. economy moving again, but the Democrats can not lose sight of another key policy area in 2009: energy policy.

Simply, the United States must finally end its dependence on foreign oil, and, in time, on oil itself, and the new administration must take giant steps toward this goal beginning in 2009.

Oil shocks devastate U.S. economy

Three oil shocks (1973-74, 1979-80, and 2008) have been major factors in three U.S. recessions, the U.S. transfers $200-$550 billion in wealth overseas annually - - depending on oil's price - - just to pay for oil imports, and imported oil has complicated U.S. foreign policy, to say the least.

Economist Richard Dawson estimates that if what Americans paid for foreign oil were retained in the United States economy, U.S. GDP would increase by 0.3-0.5 percentage points annually, "creating hundreds of thousands of domestic jobs and keeping that wealth and income working where should be working, in local economies."

The U.S. housing sector remains in deep recession. Consumer spending is down. Business investment remains lackluster, with industrial production indicators hitting new lows monthly. And lay-offs have hit alarming levels.

Against this backdrop it's understandable if one holds a not-so-optimistic view regarding the U.S. economy and the markets for early 2009: the economy's fundamentals are weak, and it's going to take a lot of stimulus, fiscal and otherwise, to turn them around.

Nevertheless, there are bright spots -- in this case literally, as well as macroeconomically -- regarding the U.S. economy of tomorrow.

This way to the future

One small, but significant data point: despite the plunge in oil prices to around $50 per barrel, demand for solar energy and solar panels remains strong. Demand for solar energy systems increased 45% in 2007 and is expected to register another impressive gain in 2008, The New York Times reported.

About 25,000-35,000 workers -- installers, manufacturers, distributors, project developers, and material suppliers -- are currently directly employed in the solar energy sector, which is expected to grow to more than 110,000 in 2016, according to Solar Energy Institute Association data, The Times reported.

And here's an equally important stat: the jobs pay between $15-30 per hour, with many solar companies offering health benefits, The Times reported.

In light of oil's rise to triple-digit prices, the United States' inability to pass an energy policy aimed at increased efficiency, renewable energy, and energy independence, represents an opportunity squandered -- on two fronts: transportation and power generation.

True, oil has retreated from the $135 range to the $125-128 range, but the nation now faces record-high gasoline/diesel prices, along with high prices for heating oil, natural gas, and coal. As a result, the broad-based disposable income -- so essential for U.S. economic growth -- has been squeezed, with many economists now arguing adequate GDP growth is not possible, if energy prices remain at current levels.

At minimum, the U.S. faces a period of economic and social adjustment -- corporate, public, personal -- as it copes with the brave new world of $4 gasoline ... and that's if gasoline remains in the $4 per gallon range. A variety of scenarios could quickly send gasoline over $5 per gallon and higher in 2009.

Clean coal has hit speed bump on the path to the nation's cleaner energy future.

The United States Government has canceled support for a clean coal demonstration project after the project's development costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion, citing the need to limit taxpayer exposure, according to a New York Times report.

Further, more than a decade into the research process, it remains an unanswered question whether the clean coal technology -- capturing and injecting carbon dioxide back into the ground -- can be executed in a safe and cost-effective manner.

Among other hurdles, scientists need to determine which soil formations are most environmentally appropriate for holding and organically processing the carbon dioxide, and that don't contain the risk of dioxide bubbling back to the surface, or polluting ground water.

Investors and traders know that major news items move markets, and stocks. Big headlines can mean millions, and billions.

Still, to stay in-touch with trends, and the pulse of money, markets, and investment, one has to survey the information landscape thoroughly, and know when a lesser-publicized data point or fact may be indicative of a larger phenomenon -- one that could tell telegraph where markets are headed.

One such data point occurred a few weeks back. It was a little-discussed item: it didn't receive much coverage in the financial press, and it certainly wasn't the lead story on the 'week in review' financial news shows. But it's a telling data point, nonetheless.

What's the new president - - Republican or Democrat -- likely to face after taking the oath of office in 2009?

Daunting fiscal problems -- and right at a time when Congress may have to consider more fiscal stimulus to jump-start the U.S. economy, one economist observed.

The biggest problem, economist Glen Langan said, will be the federal government's budget deficit. The United States is on-track to record a $200 billion deficit in Fiscal 2009 and a $241 billion in Fiscal 2010 -- and that's if the U.S. economy doesn't fall into a recession, Langan said, citing Congressional Budget Office data.

"The baseline CBO projections present a large budgetary task for the new president, but by itself it's not an impossible one, absent a major recession. The problem is there's no money available to tackle any other problems, including ones a Democratic president would address -- health care, energy policy, education and infrastructure. And don't forget the Iraq War, anti-terrorism efforts, and potential mortgage assistance programs," Langan said. "If there aren't changes to the tax code, given the current revenue structure and tax rates,to say the next president's hands are tied regarding new programs, would be an understatement."

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, today unveiled a new $210 billion federal spending plan that he says would create jobs in construction and environmental services.

The Obama proposal would invest money over 10 years in two programs, the largest of which would be a $150 billion effort to create 5 million "green collar" jobs to develop more-environmentally friendly energy sources.

The remaining $60 billion would fund a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild the nation's highways, bridges, airports and other public facilities. Obama said the construction fund would create nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in construction directly - - a sector hard-hit by the housing sector's correction - - the nation's most severe housing slump in more than 20 years.

Rival Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, called Obama's effort unoriginal. Neera Tanden, Clinton's policy director, said Obama was offering ideas Clinton proposed months ago. "Voters may ask themselves that if Senator Obama cannot produce his own ideas on the campaign trail, how will he solve new problems as president?" Tanden said in a memo e-mailed to reporters, The Associated Press reported.

Furthermore, the Republican National Committee, which seeks to portray Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal, included Obama's plan on its 'Obama Spend-O-Meter.' The Republicans assert that Obama's announced programs would add $850 billion in federal spending over four years, including health care, education, national service and foreign aid programs, among others. The RNC's web site did not break down the asserted total by year, but economist Steve Affinito told BloggingStocks Wednesday, assuming equal, annual appropriations of $212.5 billion, the total would not be an unreasonable nor an unwarranted outlay, from an economic standpoint, in his interpretation.

"I don't know where the RNC obtained its $850 billion total, but for the sake of argument, even it was $220 billion per year, that's fairly modest, given the services it includes, including universal health insurance," Affinito said. "Also, given the current state of the economy we may find we may need another $150-$200 billion economic stimulus this year, just to keep the economy growing. So in that regard, Sen. Obama's proposal is insinc with the times and a net positive for the U.S. economy."

The US government hopes that a large number of nuclear plants will be built in the US over the next 20 years to cut the country's need for oil. But GE (NYSE: GE) CEO Jeffrey Immelt says they will not be built without incentives from the Feds.

According to the FT, "Immelt said only five to 10 US nuclear power projects were likely to go ahead unless there was a carbon-pricing framework to create incentives for utilities to build more." That may be true, but GE should be quiet about championing aid for building those facilities. GE and Hitachi (NYSE: HIT) have a joint venture to build nuclear plants, and the parties would not want to be seen as sell-serving.

The comments raise a difficult issue. The government and utilities both know that the long-term future of cheap oil looks bad. But building nuclear plants take years, is expensive, and requires passing government safety standards. Over the next decade it may actually be cheaper to continue to use fossil fuels even it the price of oil stays high.

GE will make a lot of money on the move to nuclear fuel, but that does not mean that its call for government help is wrong.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

In 1908, a Ford Model-T traveled 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline. In an attempt to return to those halcyon days, the U.S. voted late Thursday night to pass a new energy bill that sets lofty CAFE goals for the American car fleet.

Along with mandating a fleet average of 35 mpg by 2020 and energy-efficient appliances and lights, the measure will require the fuel industry to raise ethanol production to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Slightly less than 5 billion gallons were produced in 2006.

The first engine to use ethanol as a fuel was built in 1826.

In recognition of the damage to the nation's grain crop prices that increased ethanol production would wreak if it were based on corn, the measure mandates that most of that increase come from cellulose (think wood pulp).

The auto industry, in an embarrassing admission of its continuing inability to forecast consumer demand (if you remember its attitude about the Volkswagen Beetle in the 1960's, you know what I mean), was prepared to filibuster the bill, but the Senate was able to garner enough votes to override. However, the Republicans were able to use this lever to pry out of the bill language that would have taxed the petroleum industry to create a fund a program promoting fuel efficiency. They also were successful in removing a requirement that 15% of the nation's electricity be generated via windmills, solar power and the like.

President Bush's approval on the bill is still in question, though, as he opposes many of the measures including one allowing the government to punish companies found guilty of price-gouging.

In many arenas, the Republican and Democratic parties have little to distinguish between them, but this bill sharply differentiates their approach to the energy problem. This compromise seems to me seems, a strong vote for more of the same policies that have maintained the status quo for generations.