http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051019/ap_on_bi_ge/mass_transit_fuel

I think they say it's something like only 6 to 8 percent of a household budget that goes to energy costs. What about other industries?

"Mass transit systems nationwide are considering cutting service, laying off staff, raising fares and delaying capital spending to meet rising diesel fuel prices. The spike at the pumps could cost public transportation systems as much
as $750 million more a year."

"Going back to 1970, we usually budget around 91 cents a gallon," Jones said. "We added an extra 30 cents per gallon, but even then it simply wasn't enough.
We didn't anticipate the prices would be this high."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

With that in mind, I find it strange how oval office is under the impression that they can continue stretching their resources in the future when they could be dealing with internal problems on a much bigger scale in the future. It's been said time and time again, but it really can't be said enough, and that is with the backgrounds of all major civilizations that have collapsed in the past (Rome and Mesopotamia come to mind), a major reason was extending it's resources further then could be handled and than succumbing to law of diminishing returns within. If energy prices rise to what some people are expecting them to rise to in the future, and no good alternatives are established, something rather unpleasant could end up happening.