A friend asked offhand yesterday: Why are we still wearing leggings? It has been, let’s say, two years since a great many of us started wearing leggings. Sometimes they are worn happily under skirts and dresses; many times, they live less happily as pants. Certain “experts” have unsuccessfully theorized that they would soon evaporate into the ether with other trends like fancy hippy-dom, to return in another 10 years to reap their magic vengeance upon us. However, the leggings have not left; in fact, they have colonized our culture for good. How come?

I propose that our nation, 34 percent obese and 32.7 percent overweight, is simply too large to fit into our pants? I, myself, for multiple months, have ceased wearing pants (for secret reasons not related to the delicious noodles of Taste of Thai). My friend’s response: “Are we that recessionist that we can’t buy ourselves new pants that fit?” It’s not that we can’t buy ourselves new pants; it’s that we don’t want to. Buying new pants will require admitting that we have a problem.

I am not talking about leggings. I’m talking about something else, tangentially related to leggings, the research for which, “I have already done the legwork,” as my mom hilariously and annoyingly characterized. These dastardly leggings are a great symbol of many of our national problems and our unwillingness to acknowledge those problems. As Professor Andrew Bacevich discussed during his talk on Tuesday, the United States suffers from a “crisis of profligacy.” We can’t stop consuming: things, food, spandex, whatever. And did I mention foreign oil? No? Foreign oil. This isn’t a new revelation. However, it’s helpful to remind ourselves of this in light of Obama’s plan to make available possible territories for offshore drilling.

We have a terrible dependency on foreign oil. It is, of course, dreadful that we don’t have a present alternative to our use of oil. If the leaders of the planet listened to me, we would immediately cease investing a sizable amount in many things and launch into the R & D that would make nuclear power or other clean energies commercially viable. Unfortunately, it’s not going to happen because of business, because no one listens to me (?) and because the world isn’t fair. Alternative fuels may yet lie on the horizon, but not tomorrow, or even the next day. Hell, by then the human race may be in the throes of the Rapture.

Our oil addiction cannot be discussed simply in terms of its eradication. That solution is incredibly far-off. We have a fuel consumption problem that we can deal with now and it’s the problem of foreign oil dependence.

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that petroleum imports accounted for 36 percent of the U.S. trade deficit. In 2009, our petroleum deficit rose to $204.3 billion dollars. This was considered a brief improvement. Our petroleum imports are a massive chunk of the problem. I suppose it comes down to a philosophical distinction: which good is worth more right now? For some of us, the environmental repercussions are too great. That argument is strong. Undoubtedly, the risks involved in offshore drilling are high. However, I find that the threat posed to our financial security is greater, partly because our President has just signed into law a most-sweeping healthcare bill.

I hope that the healthcare bill will turn out to have a positive net effect; many of its provisions —  the changes concerning pre-existing conditions and the coverage of children, for example — are vital. Nonetheless, in 2014, this bill will fall heavily upon our nation’s finances, unless it is severely stripped of its bite during the amendment process. It is NOT clear how this bill will be financed or how some of the plans to do so will pan out. For example, a 40 percent tax on the highest cost health plans. Insurers are intended to pay this tax, although it is not apparent how that will be enforced. Other pundits have suggested that there will be a massive increase in costs to small businesses.

Although Paul Krugman’s 2006 predicted financial crisis resulting from a global loss of faith in the our economic strength was not imminent a year ago; it is far more likely now. We are no longer a creditor nation. We are not all-powerful economically. We cannot spend our way out of any problem and other nations know it. We are going to have to make ugly decisions. For some these may include the trimming of our defense budget. For others, it will be the increasing necessity of offshore drilling.

Obama’s proposal is not his predecessor’s. It rejects many of Bush’s goals: There will be no drilling in Bristol Bay, Alaska, other lease sales in Alaska have been cancelled and the proposal would push past Bush’s deadline. The proposal is intended to be an element in an overhaul of federal energy policy, and accompanied by the PURCHASE of new hybrid ships, much-needed seismic studies and new fuel economy standards. In short, this is an attempt at drilling done right. Whether it lives up to this generalization is unclear; however, our present financial situation indicates that an attempt is necessary. This seems to be a well-constructed compromise. According to an MMS (Minerals Management Serves, part of the U.S. Department of Interior) study in 2006: “The quantity of undiscovered technically recoverable resources (in offshore sites) ranges from 66.6 to 115.3 billion barrels of oil and 326.4 to 565.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.” The current price per barrel is $83.51. If you would pull your scientific calculator, you’d find that this number is not mind-blowingly high, but significant. According to the New York Times, the present most optimistic estimate concerning solely the oil covered by the plan is 63 billion barrels. Drill, baby, drill? Retrievable oil production may well turn out to be on the low end and it will only be available after some years. The average American will not see a large cost reduction at the pump, but we could see a small dent in our petroleum deficit, not to mention the creation of new jobs. It’s not a silver bullet, but it is a start.

The most distressing thing about the outrage at Obama’s proposal is that nearly all critics are suggesting that Obama is throwing this out into the world as a backhanded concession to the cause of bipartisanship. To archliberals, this is another example of Obama losing his nerve. Naturally, a rapidly degenerating central Republican cabal led by Jim Boehner (whose healthcare speech prior to the voting managed to include zero legitimate arguments and zero numbers, though there were many to be discussed) has helped to foster this opinion by generally acting like fifth graders cheering the one day during which they haven’t had their lunch money stolen. Don’t let their hair-pulling cloud the matter, Obama might not be proposing off-shore drilling just as some political stunt, but because, for all it’s horrors, it makes sense, now more than ever before.

Sorry again about the leggings.

Rabia Muqaddam is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be contacted at rmuqaddam@cornellsun.com. The Argument Clinic appears alternative Fridays this semester.