Bush administration & the Saudis

Personally I wouldn't give Saudi Arabia any technology but I have to say that I don't think the article is very truthful about what's been done in this case. I'm not so sure that's what is being done here!

It is a WSJ opinion written by Rep. Edward Markey. He's a Democrat from Mass. and is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Rep. Markey's main contribution to energy independence is more federal regulations to reduce greenhouse gas. He doesn't agree with much of anything the Republicans do. He could help by cutting back on his own hot air.

The White House view of this issue can be found at Strengthening Diplomatic Ties With Saudi Arabia and it is, of course, very different than that of Rep. Markey. I'm sure this isn't a completely unbiased view of the matter either but I do think it more accurately explains the overall reason for the discussions with Saudi Arabia.

President Bush's main contribution is pushing to drill for our own oil and using whatever bargaining chips we have to get a better deal from Saudi Arabia and try to keep them at least somewhat on our side within the region. I suppose we could just revert to the idea that it's our oil - the oil in Saudi Arabia - so we're just going to take it. But then that would make a lot of people mad! We could do the same in South America and with Canada from whom we get a lot more oil. But it's theirs - not ours - so we have to buy it or bargain for it. We have to give them something for it - maybe more than we'd like.

But despite whichever side one takes I don't think the answer to our energy needs will come from the government. The government never really solves any problems. They do seem to help create them! The ultimate solutions will come from the marketplace. The government's actions will only continue to limit the marketplace options such as by the prohibitions on drilling for oil, maybe price controls, various taxes, various subsidies for one group or another, and even the diplomatic pressures. The Democratic plan to tax "unreasonable" profits is a perfect example. It's a play off people's envy and ignorance of wealth - how it's made and who benefits from it - and seeks to transfer control from the people through the marketplace to the people through government. I would rather we concentrate on getting rid of unreasonable taxes and leave the profits alone.

In the end the consumer has to pay for the goods and services used. If gasoline gets too expensive to use for personal automobiles then other modes of transportation will evolve as better options than they have previously been. If daily travel to work gets too expensive then people may have an incentive to live closer to their jobs much like they once did or more who have jobs that permit it will work away from their employer's main location. Maybe some of those high school parking lots will start to empty of cars and the kids will go back to walking or riding the school bus. There's no doubt there's a whole lot less traffic during the months grade school is not in session. If there's money to be made someone will come up with ideas to provide the needed service. Maybe we shouldn't build some of those monstrous freeways that just increase our dependency and instead switch to something much more efficient if not so personally convenient. The problem is we want to keep everything the way it is but still have real cheap gasoline.

It's not going to happen. Government isn't going to save us! Neither the Democrats - who'll surely wreck us - nor the Republicians - who just can't seem to get it together.

 

Sometimes I think we're just too nice and want to believe others are going to play fair.

 

Sometimes I think we're just plain ole crazy in a good natured hypocritical sort way of course when it comes to dealing with other nations "we" being the masters of the double standard that "we" are and all.

* "we" equals what passes for our government.

 

I suspect this is primarily a move to position the US internationally in light of the current Iranian situation.

 

Yes indeed. And I don't at all mean to condone being in bed with the Saudis, particularly to the extent of the Bush family. And for someone who has plenty of political discussions, I can't remember the last time I came close to defending W. And yet... in light of Iran, it's not a bad move.

'Course, it's probably awful for a whole lot more other reasons, but still.