Though our nation has relatively low gas prices, the recent spike at the pump is more painful for Americans. Why? Because our communities are so spread out. Life in far-flung neighborhoods is made possible by cheap gas.

Now that high prices are here to stay, it would be unwise to encourage sprawl. But Spokane County commissioners seem inclined to hang on for the long haul. The county is in the midst of updating its 20-year growth plan and it needs to pick a population projection for planning purposes. A high number translates into more subdivisions.

Studies completed by Avista and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council point to a medium-range population forecast of 562,000. But the County Commission appears to be holding out for a larger estimate, and thus postponed a decision on Tuesday. Commissioner Mark Richard said a higher number would increase affordable housing options.

As they say in Southern California, “Drive until you qualify.” But that was before motorists needed a down payment to fill up.

Big, fat anecdote. Tough-talking HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson tunneled deeper and deeper as he tried to explain that a story he told a group of real estate executives in Dallas on April 28 was merely “an anecdote,” which has somehow become synonymous with “a lie.”

Jackson, who took over the U.S. Housing and Urban Development agency in 2004, bragged about how he rescinded a HUD contract after the recipient spoke unkindly of President Bush. Apparently, Jackson then learned that such an act could very well be illegal, so he dispatched a spokeswoman to tell reporters that he made up the story to illustrate how politics works in the nation’s capital.

Mission accomplished.

Tax cut and spend. Conservatives who subscribe to the “starve-the-beast” model for shrinking government had better not read Jonathan Rauch’s article in the June edition of the Atlantic Monthly. The idea that tax cuts deprive politicians the allowance needed to expand government spending has been an article of faith among conservatives ever since Ronald Reagan invoked it during a 1980 presidential debate.

But William Niskanen, an economist who worked in the Reagan administration and is affiliated with the libertarian Cato Institute, made the mistake of testing the theory by crunching budget numbers between 1981 and 2005. He found that tax cuts correspond with spending increases.

“I would like to be proven wrong,” Niskanen says.

So if recent history is any guide, the push in Congress to make the Bush tax cuts permanent will feed the beast.

Mmm … free lunch. I realize the above item is counterintuitive for many, but to understand it, you need only listen to another tenet of conservatives: “Tax cuts pay for themselves.” If that’s the case, there’s no reason to worry about the spending side.

Ever notice how that doesn’t work for state and local governments? When they want more revenue, they raise taxes. Must have something to do with statutory requirements to balance budgets.

Starts with a “D.” A question for those who want the Bush tax cuts to be made permanent: Why do you suppose Congress stuck an expiration date on them in the first place?