In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson's economic/social policy, the Great Society, came up against a counterforce and competing claim few in public policy circles at that time had expected: Lyndon Johnson himself.

Johnson, in a decision that would alter U.S. society and the cultural landscape, chose to escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, and vastly increased government defense spending. The spending, when combined with spending for the Great Society, posed the question: "Could the U.S. economy tolerate increased government spending for defense and for social programs without an increase in inflation?" This is known in economics circles as the "guns and butter" question.

The New York Times reports that some in Washington are using the latest economic catastrophe to push Congress to make tax breaks permanent. What these folks don't recognize is that the tax cuts are a big reason why the economy is in such bad shape to begin with. With unemployment spiking to 5.5%, the worst since 1986, and oil prices up a record $11 yesterday to $138 a barrel, it won't be long before you're paying $5 a gallon for gasoline.

And since oil is traded in dollars, its 70% decline since January 2001 from 92 cents to the Euro to its current $1.56 -- has been accompanied by a 475% rise in the price of oil. The $1.3 trillion worth of tax cuts -- 36% of which went to the top 1% -- are contributing to record deficits. In 2008, we'll have a $410 billion deficit and the 2009 figure looks to top $500 billion. And thanks to $3 trillion worth of wars, the U.S. is borrowing $9.4 trillion -- almost double where we were in 2000.

Thanks to these deficits, the U.S. is borrowing 66% of its $14.2 trillion GDP -- and any country borrowing more than 60% is seen by international investors as a credit risk. You'll hear people trying to convince you that deficits don't matter. But deficits are at the core of all the economic problems we face. Republicans used to be seen as the party of fiscal conservatism. But what they've actually done would terrify a prudent banker.

Some might say that President Bush started fiddling with things during his first election. Many in the opposition certainly felt that one of the Bush's was fiddling with something down in Florida. In any event a whole lot of fiddling has been going on since that time. Whatever credit he wants to take for the economy because of his tax cuts (think manipulation or confuscation) of which I am a benefactor, I think it is more delusion on his part.

The real reason as most would acknowledge, even if it is in hindsight, has been the easy credit. We have heard of dumb money -- this was stupid money or insane money -- but fiddle he did. And now that the house (deflated of course) of cards is in the process of coming down, along with the value of our currency we do not see anyone stepping up to shoulder the blame or offer true leadership how to improve our position. Instead we see a lot of finger pointing.

So any day I expect to see President Bush pick up a fiddle just like Nero, position himself on the balcony and start to whip out a tune. As he does, you can just picture Hillary Clinton ordering him to be gently lifted out of the White-house while he continues to play, not realizing that his time has past and it is her turn to point fingers.

Even though Hillary Clinton appears to have high negative sentiment in certain corners, it is also looking more and more like she can start thinking about running mates. Not publicly of course, but the nomination seems to be hers to lose on the Democrat's side. On the Republican side there does not seem to be a bounty of ideas, and none of the candidates will be able to help themselves in any way by linking their futures to Bush or any recent successes of the party. As it stands now, no matter who wins the Republican nomination, it is hard to run on $100 a barrel oil, 40% less potent dollars, no game plan for Iraq, growing deficits, and more.