uh, wow. very interesting post. two things I noticed, while reading this:
1) You're very, very liberal (proud to be a communist?)
2) You don't really understand economics, or how the world works.
here's my answer to your fixes:
1) it was largely Chinese subsidies of oil consumption that led to rising oil prices, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that the vast majority of the oil in the world is controlled my governments. they need to use it to buy votes via social services, and therefore to not invest in additional production capacity, or upkeep. most of these oil fields were built by private companies, then stolen--sorry, "nationalized" by governments. if you really want to solve oil prices, we need to privitise the fields, but I'll look for a post of yours that addresses just this.
2) this would have happened on it's own if we had not bailed out the banks. We don't need to force it, we just need to stop socializing the losses.
3) AT LEAST three quarters is right!
4) You're confusing "education" with "schooling." we certainly don't need to spend the kind of money we're spending to get thousands of 22 year old english or black history majors. we already over value college degrees. we need individuals to be educated in things that make sense.
5) I agree that we should fix the k-12 school system. Let's use a model that already works in LA, Washington DC, and dozens of other cities: introduce competition into the mix. Teacher's unions certainly have a stranglehold now, but that don't always have to.
6) I'm not sure what you're referring to as an "oligopoly." We have large companies, but nothing, to my knowledge, has qualified as what we considered an oligopoly in my econ classes.
7) The real problem is not campaign finance reform. No matter what we do, special interests are going to control the government. If we truly want freedom, we need to take power away from the government.
8) None of these assertions are true. Would you mind providing any evidence? Considering that the top 60% of income earners already pay 100% of income tax, I'm really fearful as to what a steeper progression would look like.
9) The biggest fix on the prison industrial complex would be simply ending the war on drugs. Do we really need to lock up non-violent people for possession of a plant?
10) We agree on the police state thing, too.
11) Actually, as we have seen with nearly every attempt at this, high speed rail and subsidies for the internet actually destroy wealth and make us worse off.
12) The "wasting GDP by not spending" argument doesn't make sense to me. But medical care, like every other product, will become cheaper and better as we give individuals more control over their own decisions. Giving it to government will only make it worse. Think DMV, Social Security, anything else. Even India has free market healthcare and schools, and they both do better than the government ones.
13) You understand that this tax will cancel out, or make worse, the problems you try to solve in your first point? Europe has a 100% gas tax, and it has had very little effect. We'd be talking a tax of $5-10+ per gallon of gas. Offsetting this by a cut in income or payroll taxes would leave close to the same standard of living, while discouraging CO2 creation. Certainly not perfect, but much, much better than any of the other plans being proposed.
It makes sense to me that Krugman doesn't have the answers. He's had to forget so much about economics to get so far as a political hack. These guys have some answers: www.mises.org.