The oil companies must be laughing at all of us. With profits that reach new highs announced every few months, Americans are feeling the pain. It is now a them (oil companies) against us story. And they are clearly winning.

As profits increase, so does public outcry. And I believe that Americans are becoming collectively depressed by this turn of events. We seem to be so helpless, what can we do except pay more out of our pocket as each week goes by?

Yes, prices come down a little now and then. But by now it has become clear that they never come down too far, for too long.

Congress makes noise now and then as well. But it is all just noise, no action. In fact, most in Washington seem to recognize that little can be done to lower the price of gasoline in the short term - or so they think. I happen to disagree.

What has been proposed is modest and will do little, at best. Some have urged that gasoline taxes be eliminated. But that will reduce prices by maybe 20 cents, and guess what - we'll all have to make up the difference in some other manner.

Others urge investigations into price fixing by oil companies. However, that is very hard to prove, and no one seems to be able to explain how it is that prices have become so high.

We need prompt, dramatic action, now. At $ 3.00 a gallon, Americans are starting to feel pain. $4.00 a gallon may amount to more than just pain - it may cause real injury. I imagine that many Americans will have to make difficult decisions at $4.00 a gallon and people will have to make cuts in necessary, not just discretionary spending.

I suggest that we follow the Poletown and Kelo cases - which means have the government actually condemn a major oil company. In other words, the government should take over a majer oil producer and in turn pay the shareholders fair market value.

Condemnation refers to the government's right to seize private property for a public use. Originally, that meant taking property for roads, airports, schools, parks and other traditional public functions. But allowable uses of condemnation have broadened over the years.

The broadening started in Michigan when that state Supreme Court allowed Detroit to condemn a large portion of the city to build a new manufacturing plant. The Court, in what was called the Poletown decision upheld (but later denounced) the action on the basis that it cured unemployment, and therefore was for a public use.

The most recent broadening occurred when the US Supreme Court allowed New London Connecticut to clear cut an entire perfectly viable working class community to enable a developer to create a much more upscale, much more tax generating community. That case is called the Kelo decision - standing for the proposition that condemnation for purely economic purposes is Constitutionally acceptable.

Now, we are being crippled by other countries who do not necessarily like us or want us to be financially healthy, through the imposition of escalating oil prices. These countries, and the oil companies that cooperate with them, can seemingly do as they please to us.

Clearly it is economically critical that we do something about this - something that will lower prices. Other than actually condemning a large oil company (or going to war with one of those countries -been there, done that!), I cannot think of another response that will likely bring about gasoline price reform.

If the government owned an oil company, net profits could be eliminated from the equation, which would immediately result in meaningful price reductions. In addition, many profit related expenses could also be eliminated over time, which would also result in true savings. And the chilling effect of having the government take over one major oil company will force the others to become more reasonable. It will steal the tiger from their souls.

There is precedent for this. During World War II auto makers were compelled to produce transportation needed for war. This action was justified as being in the public interest. And it certainly was.

Once again, we are at war, and gasoline is certainly part of the fight. Which further supports my belief that the government should legally acquire an oil company and eliminate the "middleman." And I suggest that this be done immediately.

If Congress wants to do something that will count, this would be a step in the right direction. Yes, it is radical. But I believe it is legal, and I have not heard a better alternative.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.