another case for drilling?

So the government bailed out a shaky financial environment yesterday.

Kudos to them.

But I have a question: where, when, and how heavy is the shoe going to fall on me, the taxpayer?

This is a 13- or 14-figure expense the government just signed into. They don't just have that kind of money. Or at least, they don't if they want the dollar to hold any value.

So I'm a wonderin': is there a way to use this as another angle to put drilling back in the center of the table?

Listen, I have no idea how inter-related such things are, but two things occur to me: 1) Alaska has a budget surplus, and 2) most observers--if not all--credit that surplus to the oil revenues (i.e. taxes) they receive.

Can the argument be made that if we start drilling the OCS and ANWR and get some oil revenues flowing, then we help pay down some of this new debt with a revenue stream we don't currently have?

That's what we're talking about here: the need for a new federal revenue source. It occurs to me that we have just the thing in abundance in lotsa places throughout this country. And I don't want high taxes on this new oil, don't get me wrong--but even low taxes on that oil is a much better income than any taxes on the current amount of developed oil.

'Cuz that current amount of oil is zero. And taxing zero gets you. . .zero. Or at least that's what the tax on zero SHOULD be!

I mean, even the leftist of us must know that if this bailout is passed on to the taxpayer, then the likelihood of their expensive programs finding an agreeable public becomes smaller. Much smaller.

Is this something that can find resonance on the stump?