Schumer: Guns for Oil

Chuck Schumer's the best in the business at ginning up issues and headlines, albeit in ways that often seem designed to make him a one-man case for libertarianism. Today his big idea is to say that we should block planned arms sales to Saudi Arabia unless they make oil cheaper. This is a silly idea on a number of levels, but it does help illustrate the point that the shared conceit of the right and the left that our forward-leaning military posture in the Persian Gulf is helping us out economically by giving us leverage over the natural resources there is ultimately pretty hollow -- our policies are just mistaken ones that fail to serve our interests.

As for Schumer, though, it's always disappointing to see how deeply invested he is in gas price gimmicks. The United States is a very auto dependent country, obviously, but Schumer (along with Hillary Clinton) represents by far the largest pool of Americans who walk or use mass transit regularly (not just NYC residents, but also the large number of MetroNorth and LIRR users in the suburbs), as well as the city that forms the hub of our only decent intercity passenger rail network. On top of all that, barring major scandal he's never going to lose his seat. If anyone in the Senate should be an advocate of good sense on transportation policy, it should be Schumer.

Photo of Riyadh by Flickr user Bakar2007-2008 used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I'm really growing tired of the griping over the high prices of oil and the politicians on both sides pandering towards it. Oil is a precious commodity that people are seemingly willing to pay high prices for. That's capitalism. If you don't like it, conserve energy, or find other ways to use power. There is no Constitutional right to cheap gas.

I think the government should do a lot more to invest in mass transit, alternative fuel options (even nuclear and coal), and even look at improving refinery capacities to ease short term supplies. But some of these short-term proposals are ridiculous. People have to realize that oil is not infinite, and as it gets to be harder to get, the price will go up. Deal with it.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | May 15, 2008 12:53 PM

Schumer has been a putz for a long time now. Just look at his efforts at the DSCC for one. Also, he voted for the AUMF.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 15, 2008 1:03 PM

Yeah, but who are Schumer's marginal voters?

Posted by DTM | May 15, 2008 1:03 PM

So we're going to force the Saudis to decrease their income, and in return we'll let them give us their money in return for shooty things?

That's a win-win for us, and a kick in the 'nads for them. Good thinking Chuckles.

Posted by daveNYC | May 15, 2008 1:06 PM

Would it kill Shumer to know know something about the international arms markets before making this kind of suggestion? The Saudis don't need our weapons when they can buy systems in Europe and Russia. We spend an awful lot of time just convincing them to buy our equipment so U.S. makers can get the money to employ American workers.

Posted by Helter | May 15, 2008 1:12 PM

Has Schumer's brain sprung a leak? This is just... odd.

Arms dealer: "You charge too much for coke. I can't high on just $100 worth of your shit. It needs to be cheaper."
Drug dealer: "Why should I do that?"
AD: "Cuz then I won't sell you this gun."
DD: "Do you know how many guns there are everywhere? I come from the Persian Gulf. We live next to Iraq. Do you think I need to go to you to get a gun?"
AD: "Then I won't buy any of your coke."
DD: "HAHAHAHA! You can't go five minutes without snortin' blow. Go ahead and just try to wait me out."
AD: hands over gun for blow. Snorts coke alone in the corner. Cries.

Does Schumer think Saudi Arabia can't find a way to buy weapons elsewhere? They mostly use them to suppress their own people and they also know we would come running if Iran tried to invade them, just as we did when Iraq threatened invasion. We need oil a lot faster than they need a new weapons shipment. Playing chicken is pointless when both sides know who has to blink first.

Posted by Reality Man | May 15, 2008 1:12 PM

This is a brilliant piece of demagoguery on Schumer's part. It isn't just a gas-price gimmick, it's also a way to block arm sales to Saudi Arabia, a stance which appeals to New York's Jewish voters.

Posted by Matt Stevens | May 15, 2008 1:15 PM

Or, you know, we could learn to use less fucking oil.

But that's just crazy talk.

Posted by August J. Pollak | May 15, 2008 1:29 PM

Yeah, Matt. Schumer knows what he's doing. He going for the Albany-Buffalo votes here, he has the New York ones. It'd be nice if New York was really safe state wide but it isn't.

Posted by Rob | May 15, 2008 1:41 PM

I second Rob. Matt, you really have never been north of Yonkers, have you?

Our state is fucking Indiana north of the Tappan Zee.

Posted by Greg | May 15, 2008 1:46 PM

What August Pollak said.

And while I don't mind a certain amount of pandering by pols, it pisses me off when pols who actually do have a clue or two pander as if they're totally clueless.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 15, 2008 2:27 PM

Sen. Schumer disappoints a lot, doesn't he? He's the guy who protects taxbreaks for billionaire hedge-fund operators, who voted to approve an attorney general nominee who said he didn't know if waterboarding was torture and who, once he became attorney general, said he wouldn't prosecute anyone for John Yoo-approved crimes. Yeah, New York is a liberal state, isn't it?

Posted by Alan Vanneman | May 15, 2008 2:42 PM

It's not just the plebes that need the oil for their SUV's... Chuckie is also thinking of the Military Industrial Complex thirst for oil...

We have a military industry complex in the US that swallows:

1. United States (FY08 budget), $623 billion
vs.
2. China (2004), $65 billion
3. Russia, $50 billion
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884

Within that budget there's the need to maintain our bases, our airforce and navy -- they need OIL -- CHEAP oil.

Remember, Chalmers Johnson knows all about our empire building projects and their need for the black stuff. His explanation: "Military Keynesianism"
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/chalmers_video

Posted by Sand | May 15, 2008 2:50 PM

Tim Russert: Mr. Yglesias, you criticize Senator Schumer today, but nine years ago, you were an intern in his office.

[Group photo of Schumer at his desk surrounded by well-dressed teenagers. Close-up of a clean-shaven, younger-looking Matthew Yglesias.]

Does this glaring contradiction reflect on your credibility?

Matthew Yglesias: Well, that was, like, almost a decade ago, and, uh, you know, serving as someone's intern for a summer doesn't, you know, like, um, obligate someone to, like, agree with them, like, forever, you know?

TR: So you're flip-flopping!

MY: Uh...no, I just said I disagreed with him, you know?

TR: So Mr. Yglesias, do you renounce, and reject, your association with Mr. Schumer?

MY: This seems like a remarkably unsubstantive way of discussing this.

TR: So you refuse to answer the question. You're waffling.

MY:...

Joe Biden: Hey, is it my turn yet? It's been almost a frickin' month since I've been on.

Posted by Another Chris | May 15, 2008 2:59 PM

Chuck Schumer isn't an idiot -- he just thinks that the average New Yorker is so stupid that he looks like an idiot when he panders, because he aims so low.

Helter is right: Those American arms purchases by the Saudis are a favor to us, basically a partial refund on the money we give them for oil. They create lots of high-paying manufacturing jobs in America.

I wonder when Schumer will put the heat on Canada to "lower oil prices", since Canada exports more oil to us than Saudi Arabia? Frankly, the major exporter with the most potential to increase production is probably our number three foreign supplier, Mexico. If they opened up their decrepit nationalized oil infrastructure to more foreign investment, that would probably result in significant increases in their production.

"Schumer has been a putz for a long time now. Just look at his efforts at the DSCC for one. "

You mean his successful efforts at recruiting candidates like Jim Webb to run in red states? That was pure showbiz. Brilliant.

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2008 3:13 PM

"This is a brilliant piece of demagoguery on Schumer's part. It isn't just a gas-price gimmick, it's also a way to block arm sales to Saudi Arabia, a stance which appeals to New York's Jewish voters.

Posted by Matt Stevens | May 15, 2008 1:15 PM"

Was he in danger of losing Jewish votes in New York as a Democrat? Ummm, no. Then what's the point? Is his next Republican challenger that scary? He's pretty safe where he is. Any Democrat not named Zell Miller would probably clean up in the city in this political climate, which means they wouldn't need that many votes upstate to win rather easily.

Posted by Reality Man | May 15, 2008 3:29 PM

Instead of blocking arms sales to enforce cheaper oil, why doesn't he just charge more for the guns?

~

Of course the other stupidity of it is that the US buys very little Saudi oil. So is Arabia supposed to sell the US a fraction of its daily oil needs at discounted prices, while the rest of the world continues to charge the US $120/barrel? And in offering the US this discount, does Arabia continue to sell to the rest of the world at market prices?

~

And has been touched on above, this pandering is very short sighted. With peak oil essentially upon us, this is as low a price for oil as you are ever going to get again. Things are never going to get better.

Any politician who panders like this, pretending there is some easy solution to high prices is ultimately doing themselves a disservice: they will never be able to deliver on cheaper fossil fuels - so the public will ultimately call them on their bullshit when they are unable to deliver.

Posted by McKingford | May 15, 2008 3:31 PM

Fred, I believe that Jim Webb was the underdog in the Virginia Democratic primary and that his opponent was the establishment-approved choice. I might be wrong about this, but that's what I vaguely remember. I think a similar dynamic was in play when Tester ran in Montana, as well.

But for the most part, I don't know what JKC is thinking of, specifically, when he calls Shumer a putz for his DSCC efforts.

Posted by Tyro | May 15, 2008 3:32 PM

Was he in danger of losing Jewish votes in New York as a Democrat? Ummm, no. Then what's the point?

Losing the Jewish vote? No. But he wants to keep as many of them as he can.

Politicians pander to their constituents, whether they're in safe seats or not. If they can improve their chance of winning the next election from 95% to 99% they'll do it.

Doesn't mean we can call them on it, of course.

Posted by Matt Stevens | May 15, 2008 4:11 PM

Schumer is a wanker. He's more concerned with keeping his job with 70% of the vote then actually DOING his job and squeaking by 55-45 for the next half century. One of the worst aspects of the Spitzer prostitution scandal is that it allowed Chuckie to become a player again in NY state politics. In a few short months, Schumer has gone from being the lackey of a future President (Hillary Clinton) and on the outs with a popular Governor (Spitzer) to being the most powerful and senior political figure in New York. And to what does he apply that awesome power? Stupid panders. I hope Joe Torre runs for the Senate as a Rockefeller Republican in 2010 and kicks Schumer's silly ass back to Brooklyn.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 15, 2008 4:55 PM

"this is as low a price for oil as you are ever going to get again. Things are never going to get better."

Do you really believe that, McKingford? If so, how much of your money have you bet that?

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2008 5:14 PM

This is the same Schumer who wants a military draft allegedly so he can "spread the risk" of military service to the rich and powerful as well as the poor.

Except, of course, it wouldn't work that way, as Bush and Cheney already demonstrated back in Vietnam.

So Schumer is basically a grandstanding politician.

Big surprise.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 15, 2008 6:29 PM

I'll repeat what I said back on May 1st...

Matt said, "but Schumer (along with Hillary Clinton) represents by far the largest pool of Americans who walk or use mass transit regularly (not just NYC residents, but also the large number of MetroNorth and LIRR users in the suburbs), as well as the city that forms the hub of our only decent intercity passenger rail network."

This is wrong for two reasons.

1) It's easy to picture New York City as a city of pedestrians and subway riders. And that's true, NYC has enormous population density. But it also has more cars. It is the biggest car market in the USA, bar none. By a good margin. New York's Senators have more reason to pander than anyone because they represent more car owners than anyone.

2) Senators represent more than New York City. They represent the whole state. Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, etc. There are lots more drivers in the rest of the state, and not much density.

Posted by Muttrox | May 16, 2008 11:54 AM

I'll repeat what I said back on May 1st...

Matt said, "but Schumer (along with Hillary Clinton) represents by far the largest pool of Americans who walk or use mass transit regularly (not just NYC residents, but also the large number of MetroNorth and LIRR users in the suburbs), as well as the city that forms the hub of our only decent intercity passenger rail network."

This is wrong for two reasons.

1) It's easy to picture New York City as a city of pedestrians and subway riders. And that's true, NYC has enormous population density. But it also has more cars. It is the biggest car market in the USA, bar none. By a good margin. New York's Senators have more reason to pander than anyone because they represent more car owners than anyone.

2) Senators represent more than New York City. They represent the whole state. Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, etc. There are lots more drivers in the rest of the state, and not much density.

Posted by Muttrox | May 16, 2008 12:00 PM

I'll repeat what I said back on May 1st...

Matt said, "but Schumer (along with Hillary Clinton) represents by far the largest pool of Americans who walk or use mass transit regularly (not just NYC residents, but also the large number of MetroNorth and LIRR users in the suburbs), as well as the city that forms the hub of our only decent intercity passenger rail network."

This is wrong for two reasons.

1) It's easy to picture New York City as a city of pedestrians and subway riders. And that's true, NYC has enormous population density. But it also has more cars. It is the biggest car market in the USA, bar none. By a good margin. New York's Senators have more reason to pander than anyone because they represent more car owners than anyone.

2) Senators represent more than New York City. They represent the whole state. Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, etc. There are lots more drivers in the rest of the state, and not much density.

Posted by Muttrox | May 16, 2008 1:08 PM